"But that's the Old Testament" Old vs? New: How are we to live

paul1149 · Jun 26, 2015

Soyeong said:
< a whole lot of stuff >

This forum is for those who are exploring Christianity. Posts here should therefore primarily be to benefit the OP. Of course, if you have a constructive comment or two toward a fellow poster, there's nothing wrong with that either.

However it is not a debate forum. Anyone interested in a deeper back and forth should be posting there, as I see it. That is why I generally do not respond to these kinds of posts in this and like forums.

JustHisKid · Jun 26, 2015

Soyeong said:
Paul made the point in Galatians 3:17 that the newer covenants don't replace the older ones. Following the law was never the means to approach God, God always disdained outward obedience to the law while their hearts were far from Him.

Jesus was not at odds with what he or the Father had commanded, but did nothing apart from his will, so his commands were in perfect accordance with the law. The law commands that we love each other, so the only thing new about that command was that we love, not as we love ourselves, but as He loved us. Jesus loves us much more than we love ourselves, so if there is any difference between the law and what Jesus commanded, it is that Jesus was stricter, and that precisely what he was doing throughout the second half of Matthew 5.

Matthew 5:21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[c] will be subject to judgment.

And so forth. Jesus set a higher standard by teaching about spiritual principles behind the law, we goes above and beyond what the letter requires.

The command to love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, strength, and mind is a lot easier said than done. How should someone go about obeying this command? Jesus commanded that we love each other, but the rest of the commands in the law instruct how we are to love God and our neighbor.

Yes, it is much easier to obey a set of rules than it is to love. I think that's the point.

Soyeong · Jun 26, 2015

JustHisKid said:
Yes, it is much easier to obey a set of rules than it is to love. I think that's the point.

Indeed, I think when we do something for someone else we often expect something it return or at least a "thank you". It can be easy to fall into the mindset that because you do a lot of good or tithe that God owes you a blessing or your justification in return. But that's a cold legal trade, not love. Love must be freely given out of joy with no expectation of anything in return.

JustHisKid · Jun 26, 2015

Soyeong said:
Indeed, I think when we do something for someone else we often expect something it return or at least a "thank you". It can be easy to fall into the mindset that because you do a lot of good or tithe that God owes you a blessing or your justification in return. But that's a cold legal trade, not love. Love must be freely given out of joy with no expectation of anything in return.

Correct, least of all to expect to be saved.

Soyeong · Jun 26, 2015

paul1149 said:
This forum is for those who are exploring Christianity. Posts here should therefore primarily be to benefit the OP. Of course, if you have a constructive comment or two toward a fellow poster, there's nothing wrong with that either.

However it is not a debate forum. Anyone interested in a deeper back and forth should be posting there, as I see it. That is why I generally do not respond to these kinds of posts in this and like forums.

My mistake. Still, I do not see the harm of offering alternative viewpoints to his question or to interacting with those viewpoints in a constructive manner. If you wanted to address my comments in a new thread, I'd be happy with that too.

aiki · Jul 1, 2015

Never did I suggest that the explanations offered in the NT books I mentioned relieved the Christian believer of the obligation to observe the universal Moral Law of God, only the ceremonial laws and laws of separation OT Israelites were required to observe.

No disciple of Christ, however, obtains salvation and God's continued acceptance via obedience to God's commands. We are all now justified and accepted by God only by faith in Christ, not by works of righteousness.

Soyeong said:
The tutor is there so that you might take his lessons to heart, so that they might become a natural part of your thought processes. You are to rule according to what you have learned, even though the tutor no longer has authority to control or punish you. You will not need to be controlled from then outside, because you will have accepted what you have been taught. You will be controlled from within your heart. It will be your second nature."

You are arguing here against a non-existent opponent. See above.

You seem a bit eager to pick a fight...

Selah.

Soyeong · Jul 2, 2015

aiki said:
Never did I suggest that the explanations offered in the NT books I mentioned relieved the Christian believer of the obligation to observe the universal Moral Law of God, only the ceremonial laws and laws of separation OT Israelites were required to observe.

I argued in favor of keeping all of the laws, not just a subset of them. For instance, 1 Peter 1:13-16 says that Gentiles are to have a holy conduct and quotes from the Torah where it talks about laws of separation, so that says Gentiles should observe them. In Romans 3:31 Paul didn't limit it to our faith to only upholding the moral law.

You didn't say this, but if moral laws are only in regard to man's relationship with man and now man's relationship to God, then the first four of the Ten Commandments, including the law against idolatry are not moral laws. However, if moral laws also include man's relationship with God, then all of God's laws are moral laws.

No disciple of Christ, however, obtains salvation and God's continued acceptance via obedience to God's commands. We are all now justified and accepted by God only by faith in Christ, not by works of righteousness.

Keeping the law has always been about sanctification, not justification.

You are arguing here against a non-existent opponent. See above.

You seem a bit eager to pick a fight...

Selah.

Sorry if I misunderstood you. I thought you were using Galatians 3:22-25 to support your claim that Gentiles Christians don't need to follow ceremonial laws or laws of separation, so I tried to show how those verses don't support your claim.

oi_antz · Jul 2, 2015

Kvothe said:
I was in conversation recently with one of my good Christian friends and we were talking about a rather controversial topic. When I directed him to look at the Old Testament or as I like to call it the older Testament he replied "but that's the Old Testament not the New Testament."

What was this controversial topic, and what scripture did you refer to? It is important to provide this information to validate your following claims.

So my question to the community is what do we make of the Old Testament law, how are we to live in light of its revelation, how do we make sense of its revelation in the context of the New Testament?

As I take the view of it, human sin has always been the problem that we morally contend with. Each religion deals with this slightly differently. The ancient Jewish religion instituted procedures that were humanly achievable, and God gave assurance in these laws, that a person following protocols will be forgiven their sin. In this way, the people were both made aware His expectations, and given peace of mind that He had forgiven their sin. However, there was no resurrected messiah at that time as we have at this time. So the hopes that were placed upon a resurrection theology were speculative. But with that aside, the purpose was achieved, that is, people had peace of mind knowing all was good between their self and God. God simply would forgive their sin because they performed the procedures He had instituted for that purpose.

When Jesus came, He actually did what no man has ever been able to do, that is to live a sinless life that pleased His father. When He was baptised by John, God spoke and said this. The covenental change that has happened as a result of His life and resurrection, is that many of the scriptures have been fulfilled that serve to demonstrate how everlasting life in a post-resurrected world will be. For an example, we now have Jesus Christ's explanation of what is expected of those who are invited to live in the new world, which we did not have before. Before His resurrection in fact, many theologians doubted resurrection at all. Now however, we see that Jesus has been resurrected from the grave, has lived for two thousand years, has authority over all in heaven and on earth. He actually rules everything now, as a human with everlasting life. In the meantime there is still a lot of people who do not acknowledge this.

The answer to your question then, is found in St Paul's writings, where he explains that the law could never save, it could only condemn. Because of it's nature of defining procedures and rulings, the only impact it ever could have is to establish someone as being guilty. On the other hand, we have in the new covenant, a real hope of resurrection, Jesus Christ's own resurrection as the down payment, promise to us, so that we know the hope is real. We also have evidence of God's desire to forgive, because it too is proven, that even while we are sinners, Christ died so that we could live. I do not speak of some debt transfer, by the way. I talk about extending the harvest season. Instead of Armageddon two thousand years ago, He allowed Himself to be humiliated and tortured to death, for us. Otherwise we would not have been born.

So we live with The Holy Spirit in our lives, with us all the time, reminding us of what Jesus teaches, and teaching us what The Word of God is saying. We have fellowship with God through the peace we have of knowing He forgives us, as it is proven by the cross. We do not get this peace by performing blood rituals, although the ritual of Eucharist does have the same effect. Because we have fellowship with Him, we listen to His voice and follow Him, and if we happen to disobey Him (eg when we do what we desire that is against His will), we know He is calling us to repent. That is what is different under the new covenant. The law that was administered by men under the old covenant is now administered by Jesus, the Word which seeks our every though. We are called to be holy, forever repentant, and rather than annual rituals for atonement we are always mindful of the final sacrifice. That is, a solemn remembrance of the gravity of our sin.

My friend would want to say that we are now living under grace and so the Old Testament law does not apply but Jesus Himself said that he had come not to abolish the law but to fufill it, in each case where Jesus speaks of the Old Testament law he doesn't do away with the old law, his new interpretations actually show how much more rigorously it should be held.

Absolutely correct. But, to what degree should the law be enforced? Modern Jews would have it that even turning on an electrical light on the Sabbath is forbidden. This is seen too in the story where Jesus and His disciples are strolling a field on a Sabbath and breaking grain. Jesus defended them, and said "worse has been done and forgiven, and it doesn't bother me that my disciples do this. I am the lord of the sabbath" - which goes to show, it is not the letter of the law that He enforces, but the principle. FYI, if the grains had been picked the day before and carried with them into the field, it would not have been a problem in the Pharisee's eyes.

It seems to me that Jesus believed that the Old Testament law was perfect and that its commandments are morally perfect. Why does it seem to be the case that so many believers today feel free to sweep it under the rug?

It is a combination of two things, that can be reduced to the second of the two. The first is bad education. They have been taught that it is OK to break the old testament law, because it is "replaced by a covenant of grace" - they accept this, don't think much more about it and go ahead to promote it. As you can see in this thread, most of those who state that opinion are regurgitating it instead of explaining it. Second, that motivates people to not want to question it in case they must repent, and even those who came up with this reasoning in the first place: people like doing what they do even though it is sinful. The whole doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a real convenient way for Christians to feel lax about their sinful tendencies, because it allows them to think "oh, well He died for my sins and I believe it, that must mean I am forgiven". But actually, that doctrine is incredibly wicked AND responsible for so much evil in His name. It is no wonder many go that way though. The path leading to life is narrow and difficult, because it requires us to repent.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to reply on this topic; your comments are appreciated and I am very much looking forward to learning more about this topic from such an intelligent and respectful debate community.

Can you please participate? Especially provide the information requested in my first paragraph. Thanks!

aiki · Jul 2, 2015

Soyeong said:
I argued in favor of keeping all of the laws, not just a subset of them. For instance, 1 Peter 1:13-16 says that Gentiles are to have a holy conduct and quotes from the Torah where it talks about laws of separation, so that says Gentiles should observe them. In Romans 3:31 Paul didn't limit it to our faith to only upholding the moral law.

You didn't say this, but if moral laws are only in regard to man's relationship with man and now man's relationship to God, then the first four of the Ten Commandments, including the law against idolatry are not moral laws. However, if moral laws also include man's relationship with God, then all of God's laws are moral laws.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see that 1Peter 1:13-16 provides good grounds for arguing that the ceremonial laws and laws of separation given specifically to Israel are to be observed by New Testament believers.

1 Peter 1:13-16
13 Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
14 as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance;
15 but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct,
16 because it is written, "Be holy, for I am holy."

Peter is urging believers here to make God their pattern. He says nothing about observing the OT ceremonial laws and laws of separation. You see, it is no longer a set of rules and regulations that ought to order our behaviour, but the holy character of the Giver of those rules and regulations.

Romans 3:31 is also weak grounds for arguing your case.

Romans 3:28-31
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also,
30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

Clearly, Paul is not contending here that all laws given to the OT Israelites are in force for the NT believer. Prior to verse 31 he has been making the case that the observance of the law does not justify anyone before God. It is only by faith in Christ that a person is forensically declared righteous in God's eyes. To emphasize his point, Paul explains (vs. 30) that God justifies people regardless of their observance of the law of circumcision. But if one can be reconciled to God totally apart from the law, what purpose does the law now serve? Paul answers this question in his letter to the Gentile Galatian believers who were being pressed by Jewish believers to observe laws of separation (circumcision):

Galatians 2:17-19
17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not!
18 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God.

Paul is saying here that if righteousness truly comes through the OT Jewish law, then his preaching to the opposite, makes him the sinner unconverted Jews would have thought him to be. But this would make Jesus, whose doctrine of justification by faith Paul is following and preaching, responsible for making Paul and all other Christian converts sinners! What a despicable thought! Which is why Paul denies such a conclusion with his "Certainly not!" He then states his belief very clearly: If he built up again the teaching of righteousness via the law, which he had been systematically tearing down, then he would be found to be the sinner, or transgressor of the law, the unconverted Jews believed him to be. But Paul declares that he has "died to the law, that he might live to God." This, then, is his answer to the question, "What purpose does the OT law now serve?": I am dead to it. And so is every other NT disciple of Christ.

Soyeong said:
Keeping the law has always been about sanctification, not justification.

That's not what Paul argued against. Very clearly the belief among the Jews was that justification did come through keeping the law.

For the born-again believer, sanctification is not our work accomplished by observing the law, but a positional, spiritual reality from the moment of our conversion that God by His Spirit works out into our daily experience.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Hebrews 10:10
10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Acts 26:17-18
17 I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you,
18 to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.'

Soyeong said:
I thought you were using Galatians 3:22-25 to support your claim that Gentiles Christians don't need to follow ceremonial laws or laws of separation, so I tried to show how those verses don't support your claim.

But those verses do show that the OT law is set aside for "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus." (Ro. 8:2)

Galatians 3:22-25
22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.
24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

How could Paul be any more clear that the law has been set aside? If the "tutor" he is speaking of is the law and he says that the "we are no longer under a tutor," then, obviously, we are no longer under the law.

Is Paul teaching that we may live as we like because we are free from the bondage, curse and obligation of the law? Not at all! He writes:

Romans 8:3-4
3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,
4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

So, it isn't that we may live like the devil because we are not justified on the basis of our behaviour. Quite the contrary! We are freer now, more able, to fulfill the righteousness of the law as born-again, Spirit-filled believers than any OT Jew ever was! And what is the core righteousness of the law? At what is the law fundamentally aimed? Jesus explains:

Matthew 22:35-40
35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying,
36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?"
37 Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'
40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

Do we accomplish the fulfillment of these two commandments by growing a beard, or by not eating shellfish, or by not mixing fabrics, or by being careful how we erect altars and burn animal sacrifices? Of course not.

Romans 7:6
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.

Selah.

Soyeong · Jul 2, 2015

aiki said:
I'm sorry, but I just don't see that 1Peter 1:13-16 provides good grounds for arguing that the ceremonial laws and laws of separation given specifically to Israel are to be observed by New Testament believers.

Ephesians 2:12 and Ephesians 2:19 say that Gentiles were once alienated from Israel, but are now fellow citizens, so laws given to Israel would also apply to them. In 1 Peter 2:8-10, it says that Gentiles are now included among God's chosen people, so again, those laws would apply.

Peter is urging believers here to make God their pattern. He says nothing about observing the OT ceremonial laws and laws of separation. You see, it is no longer a set of rules and regulations that ought to order our behaviour, but the holy character of the Giver of those rules and regulations.

I completely agree that we are being modeled after the character of God, but His laws are in accordance with His character, so being modeled after the character of God is inclusive of them. The verses say that we should have a holy conduct, but what does it mean that we should do to have a holy conduct? To find out, we should look up God's instructions for that in the law, starting with the context of where verse 16 is quoting from.

Romans 3:31

Click to expand...

is also weak grounds for arguing your case.

Romans 3:28-31
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also,
30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

Clearly, Paul is not contending here that all laws given to the OT Israelites are in force for the NT believer. Prior to verse 31 he has been making the case that the observance of the law does not justify anyone before God. It is only by faith in Christ that a person is forensically declared righteous in God's eyes. To emphasize his point, Paul explains (vs. 30) that God justifies people regardless of their observance of the law of circumcision. But if one can be reconciled to God totally apart from the law, what purpose does the law now serve? Paul answers this question in his letter to the Gentile Galatian believers who were being pressed by Jewish believers to observe laws of separation (circumcision):

Justification has always been by faith and keeping the law has always been about sanctification, not justification, so when Paul said that we are justified by faith apart from the law, he was not saying that there was no purpose in keeping the law. Rather, he foresaw that people would misunderstand him as saying that, so he added in verse 31 that our faith does not do away with the law, but rather it upholds it. Obedience to God's law is an expression of our faith, so it is something that we should do after we are justified by faith, not in order to become justified.

Galatians 2:17-19
17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not!
18 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God.

Click to expand...

Paul is saying here that if righteousness truly comes through the OT Jewish law, then his preaching to the opposite, makes him the sinner unconverted Jews would have thought him to be. But this would make Jesus, whose doctrine of justification by faith Paul is following and preaching, responsible for making Paul and all other Christian converts sinners! What a despicable thought! Which is why Paul denies such a conclusion with his "Certainly not!" He then states his belief very clearly: If he built up again the teaching of righteousness via the law, which he had been systematically tearing down, then he would be found to be the sinner, or transgressor of the law, the unconverted Jews believed him to be. But Paul declares that he has "died to the law, that he might live to God." This, then, is his answer to the question, "What purpose does the OT law now serve?": I am dead to it. And so is every other NT disciple of Christ.

Again, you're focusing too much on justification and not enough on sanctification, as we are transformed to be more like Christ in his accordance with God's law.

1 John 3:10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

At the time Timothy was a child, the only Scripture that had been written yet was the OT, so Paul is saying that the law has a purpose and that it is profitable for teaching and training in righteousness and equipping us to do every good work. Being declared righteous is about justification and our standing before God, while practicing righteousness or training in righteousness is about sanctification and about how God has instructed those that He has declared righteous to conduct ourselves as we live out our lives.

That's not what Paul argued against. Very clearly the belief among the Jews was that justification did come through keeping the law.

For the born-again believer, sanctification is not our work accomplished by observing the law, but a positional, spiritual reality from the moment of our conversion that God by His Spirit works out into our daily experience.

Indeed, there was a mistaken belief among the Jews that keeping the law was about justification rather than sanctification, which is why Paul argued against it being about justification. Paul argued in Romans 4:1-8 that Abraham and David were justified by faith, so because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, every last one of us who has ever been justified has been justified by faith, including Moses before the law was given to him. That was not the purpose for which the law was given to him and Moses could not have used that as an excuse to disregard the law any more than we can. The character of Christ led him to have a conduct that is holy, righteous, and good, and that law is God's instructions for how to have a conduct that is holy, righteous, and good, so therefore as we go through sanctification and being transformed to be more like Christ, we should likewise live according to the example that he set for us to follow.

Romans 6:15-19 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves,[c] you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

The law gives us knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20), without the law we wouldn't even know what sin is (Romans 7:7), and sin is defined as the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4), and practicing righteousness is the opposite of practicing lawlessness, so when Paul said that being under grace did not permit us to sin, he could have equivalently said that it did not permit us to transgress the law. So clearly he did not understand "being not under the law" to mean the same thing as "free from the instruction of the law". If we were free from the instruction of the law, then we could sin all we wanted, but Paul said that wasn't the case. Righteousness is in accordance with the law, so becoming a slave of obedience means obedience to the law, which is in contrast with sin, which is the transgression of the law. Becoming a slave of righteousness leads to sanctification, so keeping the law in obedience to God is part of sanctification.

But those verses do show that the OT law is set aside for "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus." (Ro. 8:2)

Paul said that the law was spiritual (Romans 7:14), so God's law properly understood is the law of the Spirit of life in Christ. Paul said in Romans 8:7 that it is the mind of flesh that does not submit to God's law.

Galatians 3:22-25
22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.
24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

How could Paul be any more clear that the law has been set aside? If the "tutor" he is speaking of is the law and he says that the "we are no longer under a tutor," then, obviously, we are no longer under the law.

A tutor's role was to teach someone and to discipline them for acting out of line. There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ, so the law no longer has the power to discipline us for sinning. However, when the time comes when someone no longer needs a tutor, should they immediately disregard everything that they've been taught? Or should they conduct their lives in accordance with what they've been taught?

Is Paul teaching that we may live as we like because we are free from the bondage, curse and obligation of the law? Not at all! He writes:

Romans 8:3-4
3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,
4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

So, it isn't that we may live like the devil because we are not justified on the basis of our behaviour. Quite the contrary! We are freer now, more able, to fulfill the righteousness of the law as born-again, Spirit-filled believers than any OT Jew ever was!

The point Paul is making in Romans 8 is that simply giving instructions for how to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct was not enough to make us holy, righteous, and good, because our sin nature's mastery over us caused us to disobey them. So God's solution was to send his Son to pay the penalty for our disobedience to the law and to set us free from our sin nature's mastery over us, to send His Spirit to cause walk in obedience to Him, and to make a new covenant where He would write His law on our hearts, all so that we could be made to meet the righteous requirement of the law by obeying it. According to Ezekiel 36:27, the Spirit leads us in obedience to God's law.

And what is the core righteousness of the law? At what is the law fundamentally aimed? Jesus explains:

Matthew 22:35-40
35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying,
36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?"
37 Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'
40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

Do we accomplish the fulfillment of these two commandments by growing a beard, or by not eating shellfish, or by not mixing fabrics, or by being careful how we erect altars and burn animal sacrifices? Of course not.

Asking a rabbi what they thought was the most important law was common question to quickly understand their yoke and to get at the essence of the law. It was not in any way meant to say that only the most important laws should be obeyed while the rest can be ignored. The command to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind is a lot easier said than done, so when Jesus said the rest of the laws hang on those two, he was saying that they are examples of what it looks like to obey them. In other words, obedience to the other laws it what it looks like to love God with all of your heart, soul, and mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus said that if you love me, then you will obey my commands, so obeying God's commands is how we are to express our love to Him.

Romans 7:6
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.

It is important to note that Paul specified that we died to what held us captive. Sin, in transgression of the law is what holds us captive, as well as legalistic obedience to the letter of the law, not obedience to God's holy, righteous, and good instructions for how to live life abundantly. We have no need to be set free from that, but rather we have been set free from our disobedience to God's law so that we could be free to obey Him by faith and the leading of the Spirit.

aiki · Jul 2, 2015

Soyeong said:
Ephesians 2:12 and Ephesians 2:19 say that Gentiles were once alienated from Israel, but are now fellow citizens, so laws given to Israel would also apply to them. In 1 Peter 2:8-10, it says that Gentiles are now included among God's chosen people, so again, those laws would apply.

Interesting. Let's see...

Ephesians 2:14-16
14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation,
15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,
16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

This passage above does not strengthen your position. In fact, it looks like it contradicts it. Verse 15 in particular gives you some trouble, I think. The law of commandments contained in ordinances has been abolished, according to verse 15, and in its place is one "new man." It was the law of commandments that separated Jew from Gentile. Jews observed the law and Gentiles did not. As Paul explains, God's answer to the "enmity" between Jew and Gentile was to abolish the law. But if the law is abolished, why on earth are you arguing that it is not?

Ephesians 2:19 (NKJV)
19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,

This says nothing about Gentile believers being made part of Israel. They are made part of the "household of God" but I don't see that the context demands that this be understood to mean the people of Israel, or that, if it is meant to be understood this way, that the OT laws of ceremony and separation are still in effect.

So, what about 1 Peter 2:8-10? Are you playing a bit fast and loose with the text there, too?

1 Peter 2:8-10
8 and "A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense." They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.

I'm afraid you aren't paying attention to the import of a definite and indefinite article. Peter writes here that new believers are made part of a chosen generation, not the chosen generation; they are members of a royal priesthood, not the royal priesthood; they constitute a holy nation, not the holy nation - and so on. If Peter had meant that Gentile believers had become part of one particular entity (like the Israelite nation), the definite article "the" would appear, not the indefinite article "a." You must read into the passage that Peter meant Israel when he wrote of the "royal priesthood," "holy nation," etc. The passage by no means makes clear what you are contending it does.

Soyeong said:
I completely agree that we are being modeled after the character of God, but His laws are in accordance with His character, so being modeled after the character of God is inclusive of them. The verses say that we should have a holy conduct, but what does it mean that we should do to have a holy conduct?

Inasmuch as the laws of ceremony and separation are never once in the NT explicitly recommended as a guide for holy conduct, but several times we read that such laws are set aside or abolished, and inasmuch as those moral commands that are given include nothing like growing a beard or avoiding eating shellfish, I don't see any scriptural ground for holding NT believers to observe such laws. We live holy lives by loving God and each other by observing God's Moral Law, the "law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus," not by careful adherence to external and trivial demonstrations of separation.

Soyeong said:
Rather, he foresaw that people would misunderstand him as saying that, so he added in verse 31 that our faith does not do away with the law, but rather it upholds it.

Clearly, since Paul is very explicit in other places that the law has been abolished and that he (and all other believers) have died to the law, he cannot be understood to mean that we ought to continue to observe the laws of separation and rituals imposed on OT Israel. Whatever "establish" means, it does not mean we continue to practice those laws governing religious rituals and which marked OT Israelites culturally and individually as distinct from surrounding pagan nations.

Soyeong said:
1 John 3:10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

You'll notice this verse says nothing about practicing the law of God but rather the "righteousness of God," which cannot be practiced merely by not having a tattoo, or by wearing only clothing made of unmixed fabrics. If any law is in view here, it is God's universal Moral Law, not the lesser laws of ritual and separation.

Soyeong said:
A tutor's role was to teach someone and to discipline them for acting out of line. There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ, so the law no longer has the power to discipline us for sinning. However, when the time comes when someone no longer needs a tutor, should they immediately disregard everything that they've been taught? Or should they conduct their lives in accordance with what they've been taught?

But as Paul makes crystal clear, the "tutor" - that is, the law - is no longer over us, imposing itself upon us. We are ruled by the "law of the Spirit" which is concerned with the attitudes of the heart rather than with trivial, external things like how far one traveled on the Sabbath, or if one ate pork. Certainly, we are to obey God's Moral Law, but this other lesser stuff that constrained the Israelites in niggling detail is abolished.

Soyeong said:
It is important to note that Paul specified that we died to what held us captive. Sin, in transgression of the law is what holds us captive, as well as legalistic obedience to the letter of the law, not obedience to God's holy, righteous, and good instructions for how to live life abundantly. We have no need to be set free from that, but rather we have been set free from our disobedience to God's law so that we could be free to obey Him by faith and the leading of the Spirit.

For the purposes of my discussion with you, what I think is important is what I emphasized by underlining.

Romans 7:6
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.

Paul did not say in this verse that we died to sin but to the law. Not to God's Moral Law, which Christ and the apostles confirm and prescriptively describe throughout the New Testament, but to the laws of separation and ceremony which they never prescriptively describe or explicitly confirm as appropriate for all NT believers.

Selah.

faroukfarouk · Jul 2, 2015

aiki said:
Interesting. Let's see...

Ephesians 2:14-16
14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation,
15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,
16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

This passage above does not strengthen your position. In fact, it looks like it contradicts it. Verse 15 in particular gives you some trouble, I think. The law of commandments contained in ordinances has been abolished, according to verse 15, and in its place is one "new man." It was the law of commandments that separated Jew from Gentile. Jews observed the law and Gentiles did not. As Paul explains, God's answer to the "enmity" between Jew and Gentile was to abolish the law. But if the law is abolished, why on earth are you arguing that it is not?

Ephesians 2:19 (NKJV)
19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,

This says nothing about Gentile believers being made part of Israel. They are made part of the "household of God" but I don't see that the context demands that this be understood to mean the people of Israel, or that, if it is meant to be understood this way, that the OT laws of ceremony and separation are still in effect.

So, what about 1 Peter 2:8-10? Are you playing a bit fast and loose with the text there, too?

1 Peter 2:8-10
8 and "A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense." They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.

I'm afraid you aren't paying attention to the import of a definite and indefinite article. Peter writes here that new believers are made part of a chosen generation, not the chosen generation; they are members of a royal priesthood, not the royal priesthood; they constitute a holy nation, not the holy nation - and so on. If Peter had meant that Gentile believers had become part of one particular entity (like the Israelite nation), the definite article "the" would appear, not the indefinite article "a." You must read into the passage that Peter meant Israel when he wrote of the "royal priesthood," "holy nation," etc. The passage by no means makes clear what you are contending it does.

Inasmuch as the laws of ceremony and separation are never once in the NT explicitly recommended as a guide for holy conduct, but several times we read that such laws are set aside or abolished, and inasmuch as those moral commands that are given include nothing like growing a beard or avoiding eating shellfish, I don't see any scriptural ground for holding NT believers to observe such laws. We live holy lives by loving God and each other by observing God's Moral Law, the "law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus," not by careful adherence to external and trivial demonstrations of separation.

Clearly, since Paul is very explicit in other places that the law has been abolished and that he (and all other believers) have died to the law, he cannot be understood to mean that we ought to continue to observe the laws of separation and rituals imposed on OT Israel. Whatever "establish" means, it does not mean we continue to practice those laws governing religious rituals and which marked OT Israelites culturally and individually as distinct from surrounding pagan nations.

You'll notice this verse says nothing about practicing the law of God but rather the "righteousness of God," which cannot be practiced merely by not having a tattoo, or by wearing only clothing made of unmixed fabrics. If any law is in view here, it is God's universal Moral Law, not the lesser laws of ritual and separation.

But as Paul makes crystal clear, the "tutor" - that is, the law - is no longer over us, imposing itself upon us. We are ruled by the "law of the Spirit" which is concerned with the attitudes of the heart rather than with trivial, external things like how far one traveled on the Sabbath, or if one ate pork. Certainly, we are to obey God's Moral Law, but this other lesser stuff that constrained the Israelites in niggling detail is abolished.

For the purposes of my discussion with you, what I think is important is what I emphasized by underlining.

Romans 7:6
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.

Paul did not say in this verse that we died to sin but to the law. Not to God's Moral Law, which Christ and the apostles confirm and prescriptively describe throughout the New Testament, but to the laws of separation and ceremony which they never prescriptively describe or explicitly confirm as appropriate for all NT believers.

Selah.

I agree that the church just is not Israel in Scripture. These dispensational distinctives are important. Blessings.

(The subject is getting a long way from tattoos!

)

Soyeong · Jul 3, 2015

aiki said:
Ephesians 2:14-16
14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation,
15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,
16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

This passage above does not strengthen your position. In fact, it looks like it contradicts it. Verse 15 in particular gives you some trouble, I think. The law of commandments contained in ordinances has been abolished, according to verse 15, and in its place is one "new man." It was the law of commandments that separated Jew from Gentile. Jews observed the law and Gentiles did not. As Paul explains, God's answer to the "enmity" between Jew and Gentile was to abolish the law. But if the law is abolished, why on earth are you arguing that it is not?

Ephesians 2:14 is likely referring to the Temple, which had a sign that forbade foreigners to go in on penalty of death:

Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 15:11:15:
Thus was the first enclosure. In the midst of which, and not far from it, was the second, to be gone up to by a few steps: this was encompassed by a stone wall for a partition, with an inscription, which forbade any foreigner to go in under pain of death.

Josephus, War of the Jews 6:2:4:
Now Titus was deeply affected with this state of things, and reproached John and his party, and said to them, "Have not you, vile wretches that you are, by our permission, put up this partition-wall before your sanctuary? Have not you been allowed to put up the pillars thereto belonging, at due distances, and on it to engrave in Greek, and in your own letters, this prohibition, that no foreigner should go beyond that wall.

Acts 21:27-29 When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, 28 crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law and this place. Moreover, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.” 29 For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, and they supposed that Paul had brought him into the temple.

Just as the veil in the Temple was torn when the Messiah died, allowing everyone in Messiah to enter God's presence in the Holy of Holies, the Messiah also removed the barrier preventing Gentiles from mixing with and being counted with God's people. Gentiles can now join the Jewish people and be one with them as God's people through faith in the Messiah.

It would make no sense for Paul to say in verse 10 that we are created in Christ to do good works and then say a few verses later than Christ abolished the instructions that equipped them for doing every good work. Furthermore, that would directly contradict the words of Jesus, who directly said that he didn't come to abolish the law (Matthew 5:17-19) and Jesus would trump Paul. It would also contradict Paul's words in Romans 3:31.

More likely, it was talking about the man-made laws that Peter was referring to in Acts 10:28 that forbade Jews from visiting or associating with Gentiles. Very consistently the Messiah upheld the Torah and tore down man-made laws in opposition to it. The Greek word for "ordinances" is the words "dogma", which is refers to man-made laws.

Ephesians 2:19 (NKJV)
19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,

Click to expand...

This says nothing about Gentile believers being made part of Israel. They are made part of the "household of God" but I don't see that the context demands that this be understood to mean the people of Israel, or that, if it is meant to be understood this way, that the OT laws of ceremony and separation are still in effect.

In Verse 12, Paul listed four things that were once true, but now in verse 19 are no longer true, so if you're singling out one of them as not applying, then you're playing fast and loose with the text. See how easy it is to throw around unhelpful accusations? It says that they are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, so both things are true. But even if you stick hard to them just being members of the household of God, then they still should act accordingly.

1 Peter 2:8-10
8 and "A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense." They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid you aren't paying attention to the import of a definite and indefinite article. Peter writes here that new believers are made part of a chosen generation, not the chosen generation; they are members of a royal priesthood, not the royal priesthood; they constitute a holy nation, not the holy nation - and so on. If Peter had meant that Gentile believers had become part of one particular entity (like the Israelite nation), the definite article "the" would appear, not the indefinite article "a." You must read into the passage that Peter meant Israel when he wrote of the "royal priesthood," "holy nation," etc. The passage by no means makes clear what you are contending it does.

I think "a" has the range of meaning as being part of God's chosen people and that "the" has within its range meaning that they are now the chosen people, as opposed to the people who were previously God's chosen people, so I don't think you're making a strong case. In any case, verse 10 says that Gentiles are now "the" people of God, so your point is moot. Further even if they are one holy nation or royal priesthood out of others, then they should still conduct themselves accordingly.

Inasmuch as the laws of ceremony and separation are never once in the NT explicitly recommended as a guide for holy conduct, but several times we read that such laws are set aside or abolished, and inasmuch as those moral commands that are given include nothing like growing a beard or avoiding eating shellfish, I don't see any scriptural ground for holding NT believers to observe such laws. We live holy lives by loving God and each other by observing God's Moral Law, the "law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus," not by careful adherence to external and trivial demonstrations of separation.

I don't think Paul ever contradicted Jesus and said that the law was abolished. The Bereans in Acts 17:11 checked everything Paul said against OT Scriptures and would have rightfully thrown him out if he had been teaching anything contrary to them, so if you interpreted Paul as abolishing any of the laws, then you understand him differently than the people who walked and talked with him. Paul took steps to disprove the rumor that he was teaching Jews not to follow the law and claimed that he had committed no offence against the law, so you would make him a liar as well. The Spirit was not at odds with the Father about which laws should be kept, so the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus included all of the laws.

Clearly, since Paul is very explicit in other places that the law has been abolished and that he (and all other believers) have died to the law, he cannot be understood to mean that we ought to continue to observe the laws of separation and rituals imposed on OT Israel. Whatever "establish" means, it does not mean we continue to practice those laws governing religious rituals and which marked OT Israelites culturally and individually as distinct from surrounding pagan nations.

If I agreed with you that Paul is very explicit in other places that the law has been abolished, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, so that's a claim you'll need to support. The is what gives us knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20) and without the law we wouldn't even know what sin was (Romans 7:7), so if we are not permitted to sin (Romans 6:15), then the law has not been abolished. So Paul did not understand "not being under the law" to mean "being free from the instructions of the law". He said that the law was holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12) and that he delighted in the law in his inner being (Romans 7:22), so the instructions of the law are not something that we need to or should even want to be set free from. Paul did not say that part of the law was abolished or that our faith only upholds part of the law, so I don't see how you are justified in insisting that it doesn't mean we continue to practice certain parts of it.

You'll notice this verse says nothing about practicing the law of God but rather the "righteousness of God," which cannot be practiced merely by not having a tattoo, or by wearing only clothing made of unmixed fabrics. If any law is in view here, it is God's universal Moral Law, not the lesser laws of ritual and separation.

1 John 3:4-10 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

Practicing sin is equated with practicing lawlessness, which is in contrast with practicing righteousness. The law is how the Israelites knew what it meant to practice righteousness and have a holy conduct. They considered everything that was in violation of God's law to be a sin, not just some them, so I again don't see any justification for limiting this to some subset of laws. Furthermore, God ought to be obeyed and morality is about what we ought to do, so all of God's laws are moral laws.

But as Paul makes crystal clear, the "tutor" - that is, the law - is no longer over us, imposing itself upon us. We are ruled by the "law of the Spirit" which is concerned with the attitudes of the heart rather than with trivial, external things like how far one traveled on the Sabbath, or if one ate pork. Certainly, we are to obey God's Moral Law, but this other lesser stuff that constrained the Israelites in niggling detail is abolished.

You are correct that the law no longer has any power over us and there is no penalty for us for transgressing it, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to obey it. If you were given diplomatic immunity, that doesn't mean you should feel free to go around breaking the law. The law instructs how to have a righteous and holy conduct, which is just as important for Jews as it is for Gentiles.

Holiness isn't trivial or a niggling detail, but is part of the character of God. Following God's commands about holiness teaches us about him and teaches us to always keep our focus on Him. If we pause every time we eat or some something to consider whether it is something God would have us do, then that helps us to live rightly in obedience to God.

Romans 7:6
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.

Paul did not say in this verse that we died to sin but to the law. Not to God's Moral Law, which Christ and the apostles confirm and prescriptively describe throughout the New Testament, but to the laws of separation and ceremony which they never prescriptively describe or explicitly confirm as appropriate for all NT believers.

Romans 7:1-6 Or do you not know, brothers[a]—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. 4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.[c]

Paul makes it clear that we are not permitted to sin, so he did not understand "dying to the law" to mean "free from the instructions of the law". Rather, he is using an example from the law to make a point. When the woman's husband dies, she is not free to disregard other laws, but rather she is only released from the aspect of the law that would penalize her if she were to live with another man while her husband still lived. If her husband died and she married another man, then she would again be bound by that aspect of the law. So dying to the law does not free us from its instructions, but rather it frees us from its power to condemn us for breaking it. So the instructions of the do not go away, but we are no longer condemned for breaking it. Paul specifies in verse 5 that we are dying to the aspect of the law that stirs up our sinful passion to bear fruit for death and inverse 6 that we died to the that held us captive, and to legalistically following the letter of the law, but we have not died to its holy, righteous, and good instructions (Romans 7:12). We have no need to die to what is holy, righteous, and good, but rather we died to those other things so that we could be free to do what is holy, righteous, and good by faith and the leading of the Spirit. Paul said that the law is spiritual (Romans 7:14), so it was never meant to be kept legalistically by the letter.

Again, I don't see a good textual reason to limit Romans 7:6 to only being about moral laws. You're just asserting that to be the case without supporting it.

aiki · Jul 3, 2015

Soyeong said:
Just as the veil in the Temple was torn when the Messiah died, allowing everyone in Messiah to enter God's presence in the Holy of Holies, the Messiah also removed the barrier preventing Gentiles from mixing with and being counted with God's people. Gentiles can now join the Jewish people and be one with them as God's people through faith in the Messiah.

But this isn't what the passage says.
Ephesians 2:15-16
15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,
16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

Paul here writes that Jews and Gentiles join together in "one new man." The term "new" suggests that the union of Jew with Gentile is in a configuration that is not brought forward from the past. It is not that the Gentiles have been placed in the Israelite nation, but that both Jew and Gentile have been placed in Christ forming a new spiritual people group that we today call Christians (not Israelites), or the Church.

This appears to be supported by what follows verses 15 and 16:

Ephesians 2:19-22
19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,
20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone,
21 in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord,
22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

There is no place in the OT that I'm aware of where the Israelites are referred to as "the household of God." I don't think, then, that this description can be readily interpreted to mean "the Chosen People of Israel." Clearly, what is central to the description is not the Israelite people but God. As Paul continues to describe this new "household" there is no mention of the Israelite nation but only a new "holy temple" built on the apostles, prophets and Christ Himself. I don't see, therefore, any good cause in what Paul has written in the second chapter of Ephesians to think that he believes Jews and Gentiles have been united in the Israelite nation. And if this is so, then your contention that the OT laws in force for Jews are necessarily in force for the Gentiles that join them dissolves.

Soyeong said:
It would make no sense for Paul to say in verse 10 that we are created in Christ to do good works and then say a few verses later than Christ abolished the instructions that equipped them for doing every good work. Furthermore, that would directly contradict the words of Jesus, who directly said that he didn't come to abolish the law (Matthew 5:17-19) and Jesus would trump Paul. It would also contradict Paul's words in Romans 3:31.

Paul writes of "good works" in Ephesians 2:10, but such works are not necessarily synonymous with observing the law - especially the laws of ceremony and separation that were imposed on OT Israel. In fact, one can do good works without having any knowledge of the law of God at all. I have met people from countries where the Bible is unknown who are charitable, generous, and honorable. I have also encountered Christians who are kind, and gracious, and morally pure while wearing a shirt of mixed fabrics and sporting a tattoo. Yes, we were created in Christ to do good works, but it seems quite obvious to me in Scripture that such good works do not require abstaining from pork and avoiding planting two different seeds in your garden.

Jesus does not trump Paul. Both are speaking God's Word. In the case of Jesus in the Gospels, however, we are reading only the testimony of his disciples to what he said. On what basis do you trust their word over that of Paul? What exactly makes their testimony more from God, more truthful, than Paul's writings which constitute nearly half of the New Testament? There is also the fact that Jesus is God and those inspired words of God that Paul wrote would have, therefore, been Christ's words, too.

So, how do we reconcile Jesus' words about not destroying but fulfilling the law in Matthew 5:17 with Paul's words (which are inspired by Jesus who is God) about Jesus having abolished the law in Ephesians 2:15? Well, when Jesus spoke the words of Matthew 5:17, he was explaining what he had come to do: fulfill or complete the law. When he did that very thing on the cross, when he fulfilled entirely and perfectly the law, Paul writes that in so doing he abolished the law. And this accords very well with the qualification Christ made in Matthew 5:18: "...one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law 'til all is fulfilled."

Soyeong said:
In Verse 12, Paul listed four things that were once true, but now in verse 19 are no longer true, so if you're singling out one of them as not applying, then you're playing fast and loose with the text. See how easy it is to throw around unhelpful accusations?

But you haven't shown that I have done so at all. See above.

Soyeong said:
But even if you stick hard to them just being members of the household of God, then they still should act accordingly.

I quite agree- just not with the idea that "acting accordingly" includes not eating shellfish and growing a beard. Such laws were about making Israel distinct from their neighbors and about constantly reminding the Israelites of their "called out" status. But these laws did not make the Israelites more righteous than their pagan neighbors, only different. There is nothing intrinsically holy about a face full of hair and nothing intrinsically unholy about eating lobster, which is why you never encounter the NT writers going on about observing such rules. They talk a great deal about God's moral commands (no fornication, no adultery, no homosexuality, no backbiting, no hatred, etc), but are almost completely silent about these other OT laws of separation and ritual.

Soyeong said:
I don't think Paul ever contradicted Jesus and said that the law was abolished.

See above.

Soyeong said:
The Bereans in Acts 17:11 checked everything Paul said against OT Scriptures and would have rightfully thrown him out if he had been teaching anything contrary to them, so if you interpreted Paul as abolishing any of the laws, then you understand him differently than the people who walked and talked with him.

Well, hang on a minute. You're guilty of what is called "Begging the Question" here. You've assumed the Bereans would have understood Paul's words exactly as you have. But you haven't given any justification for why that would necessarily be the case. Remember, if the Bereans were going solely off of the OT, they wouldn't have been comparing what Paul taught with what Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, as you have been. If Paul was teaching that Jesus was the fulfillment of the law, that he was truly the Messiah, the Lamb of God who takes the sin of the world, and through his atoning sacrifice, prefigured in the sacrifices of the OT, had perfectly fulfilled the law, then his contention that the law was abolished in Christ would not have been regarded as a contradiction to the OT but as the culmination of it. So, no, I don't think the Bereans would have necessarily understood Paul differently than I have.

Soyeong said:
Paul took steps to disprove the rumor that he was teaching Jews not to follow the law and claimed that he had committed no offence against the law, so you would make him a liar as well.

Paul's Letter to the Galatians indicates otherwise. In it he contended quite fiercely against the need for Gentile converts to be circumcised (which was, I should point out, one of those many external laws of separation). Circumcision conferred no righteousness upon the one circumcised. It was merely an outward sign or distinctive, which Paul contrasted with circumcision of the heart (which is what "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" is all about). So, Paul did teach that these laws of separation were actually against the Gospel that he preached.

Soyeong said:
So Paul did not understand "not being under the law" to mean "being free from the instructions of the law". He said that the law was holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12) and that he delighted in the law in his inner being (Romans 7:22), so the instructions of the law are not something that we need to or should even want to be set free from

If we're talking solely about God's universal Moral Law, I quite agree.

Soyeong said:
Paul did not say that part of the law was abolished or that our faith only upholds part of the law, so I don't see how you are justified in insisting that it doesn't mean we continue to practice certain parts of it.

Oh, but he did! Read Galatians. As I point out above, Paul went after an external law of separation (circumcision) and rejected it as part of the believer's life in Christ. Why wouldn't his rejection of one of these laws constitute a rejection of them all? He frequently urges believers to be sexually pure, to love, to be faithful, and so on, but not once does he hold forth on Christians observing any of the laws of separation. Paul's flat rejection of one of these laws and his utter silence on the rest strongly suggest that they were not part of the law to which NT believers were to adhere.

Soyeong said:
Practicing sin is equated with practicing lawlessness, which is in contrast with practicing righteousness. The law is how the Israelites knew what it meant to practice righteousness and have a holy conduct.

Wearing mixed fibers is not practicing sin. Neither is planting two different seeds in the same vineyard. As Paul explicitly declares,

1 Corinthians 6:12
12 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

Paul's rule of conduct fundamentally adhered to this principle. But such a principle confounds the idea that one must observe OT planting rules, and rules against fiber mixing, and such like. How would one be brought under the power of mixed fibers? And if one cannot be brought under the power of them, then, according to Paul's rule here, they are perfectly "lawful."

Soyeong said:
Furthermore, God ought to be obeyed and morality is about what we ought to do, so all of God's laws are moral laws.

Not all of God's laws pertain to morality. As I pointed out earlier, the laws of separation were not about morality but about distinctiveness. This is why such laws are ignored or rejected in the NT. The hair on a man's face does not make him holy. Neither do the clothes on his back.

Selah.

Athée · Jul 28, 2015

South Bound said:
Christians are not Jews. The Church is not Israel.

I don't know why atheists are so unable to grasp this simple concept.

I always find it amusing, the way you hypocrites tell us we're inconsistent the way we follow the Bible and how we "pick and choose", but then you expect us to ignore the passages that explain that we are not Israel and how Christ fulfilled those laws given to the Nation of Israel.

I'll make a deal with you: When you start living by 15th century French laws, you can tell us to start living by Old Covenant Nation of Israel laws.

Note: I will be posting a much more thorough review of the thread later on but I wanted to give you the individual attention that a first poster deserves

First let me say that the combative tone was not at all what I was expecting here. Second, your combative tone does absolutely nothing to invalidate your argument...so onwards we go!
Essentially your point if I read it correctly is that Jews are not Gentiles, therefore there are different rules. So far so good although I wish you had made your case using scripture to back it up. After this I am a bit lost...it seems to me that it is not analogous to compare Old testament vs New, to 15th century French law vs 2015 Canadian law. In one case you have dictates for behaviour from a perfect being who transcends culture and who's nature (values, opinions etc) never change, who has communicated perfectly to us rules to live by. In the other you have culturally informed sets of rules that are not divinely inspired. I believe your point was that the rules for one specific culture in a specific time and place are not meant to be followed by other groups at another time and place ( I agree) but you have not accounted for the God variable, nor mentioned how you interpret any of the scriptures that seem to cast doubt on your position (or those that support it either).
Thanks for posting

Athée · Jul 28, 2015

Kvothe here (the one who started the thread and then vanished!)

First off an apology to all of you who took the time to thoughtfully respond and expected an equally thoughtful response to return your way in a reasonable amount of time. I foolishly posted this thread just as I was about to dive into the home stretch of my masters degree and then immediately was consumed by that project. The good news is that I am now done! As such I wanted to go back through your excellent posts and see if I could synthesize some of the discussion and the various opinions.

To be upfront, as I work through this material my initial thesis (absolutely willing to have my mind changed by you intelligent people who have studied this way longer and more deeply than I), is essentially this:

The Law was/is perfect but it was/is perfectly unattainable for human beings. Christians, under the new covenant are no longer justified by following the law (although I would argue that if they were able to do so perfectly –the only example of this allegedly being done is Jesus himself, and he had to have done it or he would not have been the sinless sacrifice- they would be considered justified in God’s eyes), instead they are saved by faith (possibly by a works/faith combo depending on how you want to read James). This does not mean, however, that Christians under the new covenant are released from the requirement to follow the specifics of the law, only that their salvation is no longer dependent on doing so.

You will also notice that I will mostly be responding only to the posts that included specific scripture references, only because it is easier to respond to supported views rather than trying to hunt down the scripture behind the unsupported (which does not mean wrong by the way) opinions and assertions. With that in mind …here we go J

The first couple posts in the thread (one helpful, one rather pejorative) seem to be making the case that Jews and Gentiles are under different requirements. Unfortunately, these assertions are not backed up with any scripture. They will, however, be well supported by later posters.

The second poster on our thread, Paul1149, says that Jesus fulfilled the law on the cross and gave as evidence the final words of Jesus “It is accomplished” (of course the final words are different depending on what gospel or indeed what manuscript you read) but more significantly goes on to point out that it is through grace that we are saved, quoting Ephesians 2:8 and Romans 10:4. This will be a common theme throughout many of the posts and one that I think we can all agree is very well attested in the both the gospels and the letters. Paul1149 ad well as Lukaris directs us to Romans 13:8-10. This verse will come up many times and it says:

Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. [Italics by Lukaris]

This is a very important piece of theology as we consider this question. It seems to be saying that the only thing you really need to do in order to keep the commandments is to love your neighbor. Two questions that arise from this passage are, what is the difference between the commandments and the Law and who is our neighbor? I have some critiques to offer of this passage at a later point for now let’s just assume for the sake of argument that it considers the law and the commandments to be synonymous and that therefore in order to obey the entirety of the law simply means to love your neighbor.

Our next poster, Emmy, nuances this discussion of Romans by pointing us to a similar passage in Matthew , specifically, Matthew 22: 35-40, where we read that:

The first and great Commandment is: " Love God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. The second is like it: love your neighbour as yourself." On these two Commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.

Notice that there is a distinction in this verse between the commandments and the law and prophets. It says on these two notions, the law and prophets hang (not that they are the same thing). Still, it would seem that by following those two commandments a person would have followed all the requirements of the Law and Prophets.

That said, to this point none of these verses really tell us how we are meant to behave aside from this very nebulous idea of loving your neighbor.

The rest of the thread makes me feel like I am watching a really great tennis match between two players who like the baseline rally tactic of trading heavy shots back and forth. There were a few points that I thought were interesting but not truly central and so I will not be commenting on those. The Bereans for one, who were examining the idea that Jesus needed to suffer and die, which was not what Jews at the time thought. Paul was teaching them how to see the scriptures in this light and they were examining them carefully to see if he was right. The other non-starter for me was the idea that gentiles are necessarily part of the royal priesthood etc. While interesting, I think the force of the various scriptures about following or not following the law hold, whether we gentiles are part of that specific group or not.

To summarize as best I can….:

Aiki thinks generally that we are no longer meant to follow the commands of the Law, specifically those laws that are about separation and sacrifice.

Some of Aiki’s best supports from scripture are:

Ephesians 2:14-16
14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation,
15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,
16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

1 Corinthians 6:12
12 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

Galatians 2:17-19
17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not!
18 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God.

Galatians 3:22-25
22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.
24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Romans 7:6
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.

Romans 8:2-4
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,
4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Soyeong on the other hand believes that we are not justified by following the dictates of the law but that following them is righteous behavior nonetheless.

Scripture highlights:

Matthew 5:17-19

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter,a]'>[a] not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaksb]'>[b] one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Romans 7

What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived 10 and I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good.

1 John 3:4 Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness

Romans 3:31Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

So at this point I am going to return to my thesis because I think that any resolution of this question has to deal with all of these scriptures. As an aside, I notice that generally in the thread people who want to say that we do not need to follow the law, don’t of their own volition, bring up Matthew 5. Conversely, those who do think the laws should still be observed don’t bring up Ephesians 2. One point of agreement that came up consistently was that neither of these heavy hitters thinks that we today are justified by doing the works of the law. So far so good!

Looking first at the scriptures and ideas presented by Aiki. I would contend that if you go back and look at all those scriptures that I cited from those posts, all of them except the first one (Ephesians 2) are talking about justification, saved or not. They talk about being made alive to god, or delivered from the law which condemned them etc. In these cases the point is that it is only through the work of Jesus that we are justified in the eyes of God, for all have sinned and fall short etc. The difficulty here of course is exactly what Aiki quotes in 1 Corinthians, that while all is lawful for me, not all is helpful. This could be understood to mean that no act I can now do is going to condemn me under the law because the law no longer has the power to condemn (because of the work of Jesus). This does not mean, however, that I am free to simply ignore the dictates of the law because violating them could still be in the category of “unhelpful” to me. This is especially likely since the law was perfect and given to the Jews as a way to live in perfect righteousness before God (along with a system of sacrifice for when they inevitably messed it up).

The real sticking point as I see it in the scriptures comes from that first passage Ephesians 2 14-16.

For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

Here it specifically says that in his person Jesus the enmity was put aside. What enmity? The division between Jewish and Gentile follower. This division centered around the Law that had been given to the Jews to follow but had not been practiced by the Gentiles. So Jesus abolishes this law in himself to reconcile the two sides and make the church (or what would become the church) one whole body. So what are we to make of this, it clearly says the law is abolished in the work of Jesus and yet in Matthew 5 the words on the lips of Jesus himself are “I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it”. The possibility that I think most likely is that in Ephesians what is being described is the demolishing of the power of the law to condemn. On the cross Jesus pays for all sins and so even if a believer sins by breaking the one of the Laws, that transgression is covered by Jesus, in a similar way to how the animal sacrifices had once cleansed the Jews who had broken the Law. Notice that this does not mean that we are free to carry on breaking the Law but rather that we are no longer condemned by it.

As I typed that I realized that I had shortchanged Aiki because another good point made was that Paul specifically teaches that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised. How can we reconcile that Paul is teaching the Gentiles to disobey this part of the Law, while Jesus (through the anonymous gospel writer) says that anyone who teaches someone to disobey the least of the dictates of the Law will be considered the least in the kingdom of heaven? In truth I am not sure. It could be the case that in order to advance the cause Paul is happy to be called the least in the kingdom. This is possible but entirely speculative and seems to fly in the face of other discussions by the apostles in the New Testament who are often wondering about who will be greatest in heaven. If anyone has a good idea here let me know!

So having dealt with the scriptures cited by Aiki I think we are still left with the challenges posed by Soyeong. If whoever wrote Matthew is to be believed, Jesus himself gives us the clearest teaching on this subject.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter,a]'>[a] not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaksb]'>[b] one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Whatever, fulfill means (and I like Soyeong’s thought here although more support for that position would be nice), it can not mean abolish, do away with, no longer require the following of etc. Breaking the least of these commandments makes you least in heaven , ie you have not lived in a righteous way according to Jesus. Moreover, as far as I know, heaven and earth have not passed away, nor have all things been accomplished. Some people will want to say that all things were accomplished on the cross. I would counter that while many things indeed could be said to have been fulfilled there, we can’t say all things. The new heavens and new earth were not established so that has yet to be accomplished for one. I suppose one could redefine “all things” to mean only “the provision of a way to salvation for all people” but I have yet to see a convincing case that this is entailed. We are left then with the statement that the law, in all its detail still stands today. The Law does not justify us, Jesus does; those who teach others to disobey even the smallest dictate of the Law will still end up in heaven (just at a lower rank). It seems clear therefore that Christians today should still consider themselves obligated to follow the righteous living as described by God in the Older Testament. I understand that this is uncomfortable (who would willingly give up shrimp or cotton polyester blends! Let alone decide to be circumcised later in life) but it does seem scriptural.

Looking forward to your thoughts everyone.

Katallina · Jul 29, 2015

The way I've come to understand it, the best way to look at the Bible is this:

Old Testament <-- Jesus --> New Testament.

What do I mean? I mean that Jesus' teachings are the central focus of the Bible. Directly or not, He / God is its main character and while there are many humans, angels, etc. throughout what we are essentially reading is God's quest to find a people with whom to share his unending, overwhelming, abundant love.

Both the old and new testament are of extreme importance, because without both the full context of Jesus, and of the overall quest He / God were on, cannot fully be understood. As others have said, the coming of Jesus does not make the Old Testament obsolete. It fulfills many prophecies, and without having it as context basically nothing Jesus does would actually make sense. Especially when you consider John 1:1 . (Jesus is the Word, just in case you aren't familiar with this.)

As a Christian (and I will not deny for one second that I am a relatively new one, so I pray I am getting this right.) the most key thing is to believe that Jesus came to Earth and that he died and rose from the dead. From there, following the commands he felt were most important--a question the Pharisees actually asked him--is the next step. (Love the Lord with all your strength, all your heart and all your mind; followed by love your neighbor as yourself).

I think that many people feel that if someone can work on those two basic (in speech, much more challenging in practice!) principles that many of the fulfillments of the Law (which you rightly said he did not come to abolish, but to fulfill) will be taken care of. As for why other parts aren't still used, they were either part of that fulfillment on the cross or they were ceremonial laws that were in a completely different category. (Examples would include which animals to eat and whether people should wear clothing made of more than one material.)

I hope that something here will be of assistance to you. There have been many excellent points brought up by others but I figured it couldn't hurt to add my own. Have a great day and God bless.

oi_antz · Jul 30, 2015

Kvothe said:
The Law was/is perfect but it was/is perfectly unattainable for human beings. Christians, under the new covenant are no longer justified by following the law (although I would argue that if they were able to do so perfectly –the only example of this allegedly being done is Jesus himself, and he had to have done it or he would not have been the sinless sacrifice- they would be considered justified in God’s eyes), instead they are saved by faith (possibly by a works/faith combo depending on how you want to read James). This does not mean, however, that Christians under the new covenant are released from the requirement to follow the specifics of the law, only that their salvation is no longer dependent on doing so.

In post #28 I laid some groundwork for responding to this. Responding to this with that groundwork laid, and in conjunction with what has been recently said on an adjacent thread: "OSAS vs NOSAS", it is clear that humans cannot be perfect (since we are finite, learning creatures with limited perception, we will make mistakes), yet we are prone to enjoy various sin. There was a clear distinction made in that adjacent post, whereas one Christian said he doesn't think that the presence of sin in a Christians life is a risk to his salvation, yet there are scriptures that suggest Christians who practice sin have wandered away from their faith. So as it is, sin and holiness are opposed, if a Christian finds sin in their life, they are able to repent, to learn to turn away from it, whereas if a Christian is practising sin then they are choosing to not pursue holiness. Yet, whether the Christian is being convicted by their conscience of a sin, regardless if they know it to have been declared sinful in the bible, it is the same law of God that they are transgressing. Therefore, the major difference between Old Testament and New Testament is not the abolition of the law, but rather the procedure by which we gain forgiveness and the resulting feeling of peace (being justified in God's sight). Whereas before Jesus Christ, this was obtained by following rituals as administered by earthly priests, in the era of the New Testament, no ritual is required but only a sincere decision to do the right thing. This is the meaning of what Jesus said: "I have come to fulfil the law", and the fulfilment of prophecy: "I will write the law on their hearts and they will be my people". So the contrasting speech given in this sense by St Paul indicates that knowledge of right and wrong (ie, the law) can only convict a person and show them that they must appease God. Whereas living by good faith in Jesus Christ, knowing that if we turn from our sin He is faithful and just to forgive us of sin, there is no longer condemnation for those who are in Christ. But pay attention to what that means: those who are in Christ are those who have accepted His judgement against their sin. They have confessed their sin to Him, and decided to put down their flesh-born desires that lure them into that sin, and instead to pursue holiness by denying themselves to obediently do His will instead. When a person does that, repentance, and they claim the power of His blood for the remission of their sin, they are no longer condemned in the spirit, instead they reside in Him. Hebrews 9:25-26.

Kvothe said:
They talk about being made alive to god, or delivered from the law which condemned them etc. In these cases the point is that it is only through the work of Jesus that we are justified in the eyes of God, for all have sinned and fall short etc. The difficulty here of course is exactly what Aiki quotes in 1 Corinthians, that while all is lawful for me, not all is helpful. This could be understood to mean that no act I can now do is going to condemn me under the law because the law no longer has the power to condemn (because of the work of Jesus). This does not mean, however, that I am free to simply ignore the dictates of the law because violating them could still be in the category of “unhelpful” to me. This is especially likely since the law was perfect and given to the Jews as a way to live in perfect righteousness before God (along with a system of sacrifice for when they inevitably messed it up).

The law is perfect and it does condemn. But if the son will set you free, then you will indeed be free. This is why in the New Testament we find St Paul speaking about strong and weak consciences, and concluding that if by eating meat he will cause his brother to stumble, then he will not eat meat. What this essentially describes, or shows, is that depending on a person's culture, what they have learned to be wrong in their conscience is what convicts them of sin. There is even a direct statement to this effect by St Paul: "If you do what you know you should not do, then to you it is sin". This makes the matter of sin an extremely personal issue that is between one's self and God, and it requires that we act entirely without guilt. Even as we see the Pharisee's carefully polishing the outside of the cup and yet being foul inside, that is a possibility in the way that some people interpret scripture even with knowledge of The New Testament. But that isn't the point. The point is to stand with a clear conscience in the sight of God, and to be sensitive to the weak conscience of your brother, so to not cause him to stumble.

Kvothe said:
The real sticking point as I see it in the scriptures comes from that first passage Ephesians 2 14-16.

For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

Here it specifically says that in his person Jesus the enmity was put aside. What enmity? The division between Jewish and Gentile follower. This division centered around the Law that had been given to the Jews to follow but had not been practiced by the Gentiles. So Jesus abolishes this law in himself to reconcile the two sides and make the church (or what would become the church) one whole body. So what are we to make of this, it clearly says the law is abolished in the work of Jesus and yet in Matthew 5 the words on the lips of Jesus himself are “I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it”.

St Paul does not say that Jesus abolished the law, but the enmity that the law creates, that is the enmity described between the desires of the flesh and the desires of the spirit. Because we now know, we can see so clearly, the extent of God's mercy that even to give His only-begotten son so that we would turn to Him to be healed. We know that there is no condemnation if we remain in Christ. Past is the past and nothing can change it, but now going into the future, are we prepared to do the right thing? That disposition of the heart, knowing we are obeying the commandments that are heavy on our conscience, is what gives us the confidence to know that He has accepted us. Because of His abundant grace, He never puts upon us the grief that our past sins have caused Him. This is how it is known to be real and true: there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ.

Kvothe said:
The possibility that I think most likely is that in Ephesians what is being described is the demolishing of the power of the law to condemn.

It sounds like this can not be true. Be careful about believing it.

Kvothe said:
On the cross Jesus pays for all sins and so even if a believer sins by breaking the one of the Laws, that transgression is covered by Jesus, in a similar way to how the animal sacrifices had once cleansed the Jews who had broken the Law.

PSA is a heresy. The truth about Substitutionary Atonement is being revealed to me as I continue to investigate it: Christ Jesus is not the substitute for us, but we are the substitute for Him! Romans 5:15, John 1:12, Romans 12:5.

Kvothe said:
Notice that this does not mean that we are free to carry on breaking the Law but rather that we are no longer condemned by it.

No, the law does still condemn us, but just as Jesus said that we should forgive our brother seventy times seventy times, so too does He forgive us. Though being forgiven does not make us fit for everlasting life, only repentance can do that. Only those who are of the right character are determined fit for everlasting life. Not by any allegiance to doctrines. Look at the last half of Matthew 25 to understand that.

Kvothe said:
As I typed that I realized that I had shortchanged Aiki because another good point made was that Paul specifically teaches that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised. How can we reconcile that Paul is teaching the Gentiles to disobey this part of the Law, while Jesus (through the anonymous gospel writer) says that anyone who teaches someone to disobey the least of the dictates of the Law will be considered the least in the kingdom of heaven? In truth I am not sure. It could be the case that in order to advance the cause Paul is happy to be called the least in the kingdom. This is possible but entirely speculative and seems to fly in the face of other discussions by the apostles in the New Testament who are often wondering about who will be greatest in heaven. If anyone has a good idea here let me know!

I suggest you should view it in context. Was it The Holy Spirit that was convicting them to be circumcised, or was it their fellow man? The context of that whole passage suggests that they were convinced that they must perform that ritual in order to be saved, yet what St Paul is expressing to them is that if they do not feel saved despite being in their entire form, then they are not operating out of faith but rather out of fear. St Paul is expressing to them that if they go down a legalistic route, they are only subjecting themselves to a fleshly interpretation of the law, whereas what he is encouraging instead is to live by faith. That is, rather than to polish the outside of the cup to appear blameless, renew one's self through obeying The Word of God (note here too: in speaking of The Word of God I do not mean the bible, but the one who speaks to us through the bible and in our daily lives - the very same one who took on human form. Ie: - The bible's writers were inspired by The Word of God. The Word of God speaks to us through the bible. But the bible is not the Word of God, it is only words on paper, and some translations (one especially) do not convey The Word of God).

Kvothe said:
Whatever, fulfill means (and I like Soyeong’s thought here although more support for that position would be nice), it can not mean abolish, do away with, no longer require the following of etc. Breaking the least of these commandments makes you least in heaven , ie you have not lived in a righteous way according to Jesus. Moreover, as far as I know, heaven and earth have not passed away, nor have all things been accomplished. Some people will want to say that all things were accomplished on the cross. I would counter that while many things indeed could be said to have been fulfilled there, we can’t say all things. The new heavens and new earth were not established so that has yet to be accomplished for one. I suppose one could redefine “all things” to mean only “the provision of a way to salvation for all people” but I have yet to see a convincing case that this is entailed. We are left then with the statement that the law, in all its detail still stands today. The Law does not justify us, Jesus does; those who teach others to disobey even the smallest dictate of the Law will still end up in heaven (just at a lower rank). It seems clear therefore that Christians today should still consider themselves obligated to follow the righteous living as described by God in the Older Testament. I understand that this is uncomfortable (who would willingly give up shrimp or cotton polyester blends! Let alone decide to be circumcised later in life) but it does seem scriptural.

Looking forward to your thoughts everyone.

Re: mixed fabrics and shellfish: When we begin judging others, we begin receiving that judgement within ourselves with the same measurement we use, through our own conscience showing us our very own hypocrisy. I hate that! Don't do it

Lukaris · Aug 1, 2015

From Kvothe post #36:

That said, to this point none of these verses really tell us how we are meant to behave aside from this very nebulous idea of loving your neighbor.

The Lord preached that we should give alms (be charitable), pray, & fast in Matthew 6:1-18 as the way we fulfill the challenges of striving to live out the virtues noted in Matthew 5. Basic guidelines of conduct St. Paul laid out in Romans 13:8-10 are the same that the Lord told to the rich young man in Matthew 19:16-26. The Lord told the rich young man to keep the commands & the rich young man insisted he "kept" (!) them; well, the Lord says to "keep" the commands and this is not fulfilled until the day one dies. The Lord noted that to be as virtuous as the Beatitudes in Matthew 5 one must be "perfect" (Matthew 5:48). Since the rich young man was so zealous, the Lord then offered him the option to be "perfect" (Matthew 19:21) and sell all his possessions and follow. I honestly think the rich young man could have humbly thanked the Lord for telling him to keep the basic commandments; the Lord knows the difficulties we face as he preached in Matthew 5 & sums up in John 16:33.

dcalling · Aug 1, 2015

You actually said it better than me. I think since we are all sinners (follower or Chris or not), we all fail under the law, but Jesus has told us that as long as we try to love others as ourselves, we are saved by God's grace (because of Him).

You will always see people who are combative, as we are all sinners, Christians included. I was fortunate that when I was atheist, the group of Christians I meets was so kind and nice that no matter what kind of language I through out they always meet me with love. It took me years to evolution/Buddhist/Christian/Islam and finally went to Christian faith again, will pray God will show you the truth as well.

Kvothe said:
Kvothe here (the one who started the thread and then vanished!)

First off an apology to all of you who took the time to thoughtfully respond and expected an equally thoughtful response to return your way in a reasonable amount of time. I foolishly posted this thread just as I was about to dive into the home stretch of my masters degree and then immediately was consumed by that project. The good news is that I am now done! As such I wanted to go back through your excellent posts and see if I could synthesize some of the discussion and the various opinions.

To be upfront, as I work through this material my initial thesis (absolutely willing to have my mind changed by you intelligent people who have studied this way longer and more deeply than I), is essentially this:

The Law was/is perfect but it was/is perfectly unattainable for human beings. Christians, under the new covenant are no longer justified by following the law (although I would argue that if they were able to do so perfectly –the only example of this allegedly being done is Jesus himself, and he had to have done it or he would not have been the sinless sacrifice- they would be considered justified in God’s eyes), instead they are saved by faith (possibly by a works/faith combo depending on how you want to read James). This does not mean, however, that Christians under the new covenant are released from the requirement to follow the specifics of the law, only that their salvation is no longer dependent on doing so.

You will also notice that I will mostly be responding only to the posts that included specific scripture references, only because it is easier to respond to supported views rather than trying to hunt down the scripture behind the unsupported (which does not mean wrong by the way) opinions and assertions. With that in mind …here we go J

The first couple posts in the thread (one helpful, one rather pejorative) seem to be making the case that Jews and Gentiles are under different requirements. Unfortunately, these assertions are not backed up with any scripture. They will, however, be well supported by later posters.

The second poster on our thread, Paul1149, says that Jesus fulfilled the law on the cross and gave as evidence the final words of Jesus “It is accomplished” (of course the final words are different depending on what gospel or indeed what manuscript you read) but more significantly goes on to point out that it is through grace that we are saved, quoting Ephesians 2:8 and Romans 10:4. This will be a common theme throughout many of the posts and one that I think we can all agree is very well attested in the both the gospels and the letters. Paul1149 ad well as Lukaris directs us to Romans 13:8-10. This verse will come up many times and it says:

Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. [Italics by Lukaris]

This is a very important piece of theology as we consider this question. It seems to be saying that the only thing you really need to do in order to keep the commandments is to love your neighbor. Two questions that arise from this passage are, what is the difference between the commandments and the Law and who is our neighbor? I have some critiques to offer of this passage at a later point for now let’s just assume for the sake of argument that it considers the law and the commandments to be synonymous and that therefore in order to obey the entirety of the law simply means to love your neighbor.

Our next poster, Emmy, nuances this discussion of Romans by pointing us to a similar passage in Matthew , specifically, Matthew 22: 35-40, where we read that:

The first and great Commandment is: " Love God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. The second is like it: love your neighbour as yourself." On these two Commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.

Notice that there is a distinction in this verse between the commandments and the law and prophets. It says on these two notions, the law and prophets hang (not that they are the same thing). Still, it would seem that by following those two commandments a person would have followed all the requirements of the Law and Prophets.

That said, to this point none of these verses really tell us how we are meant to behave aside from this very nebulous idea of loving your neighbor.

The rest of the thread makes me feel like I am watching a really great tennis match between two players who like the baseline rally tactic of trading heavy shots back and forth. There were a few points that I thought were interesting but not truly central and so I will not be commenting on those. The Bereans for one, who were examining the idea that Jesus needed to suffer and die, which was not what Jews at the time thought. Paul was teaching them how to see the scriptures in this light and they were examining them carefully to see if he was right. The other non-starter for me was the idea that gentiles are necessarily part of the royal priesthood etc. While interesting, I think the force of the various scriptures about following or not following the law hold, whether we gentiles are part of that specific group or not.

To summarize as best I can….:

Aiki thinks generally that we are no longer meant to follow the commands of the Law, specifically those laws that are about separation and sacrifice.

Some of Aiki’s best supports from scripture are:

Ephesians 2:14-16
14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation,
15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,
16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

1 Corinthians 6:12
12 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

Galatians 2:17-19
17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not!
18 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God.

Galatians 3:22-25
22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.
24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Romans 7:6
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.

Romans 8:2-4
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,
4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Soyeong on the other hand believes that we are not justified by following the dictates of the law but that following them is righteous behavior nonetheless.

Scripture highlights:

Matthew 5:17-19

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter,a]'>[a] not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaksb]'>[b] one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Romans 7

What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived 10 and I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good.

1 John 3:4 Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness

Romans 3:31Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

So at this point I am going to return to my thesis because I think that any resolution of this question has to deal with all of these scriptures. As an aside, I notice that generally in the thread people who want to say that we do not need to follow the law, don’t of their own volition, bring up Matthew 5. Conversely, those who do think the laws should still be observed don’t bring up Ephesians 2. One point of agreement that came up consistently was that neither of these heavy hitters thinks that we today are justified by doing the works of the law. So far so good!

Looking first at the scriptures and ideas presented by Aiki. I would contend that if you go back and look at all those scriptures that I cited from those posts, all of them except the first one (Ephesians 2) are talking about justification, saved or not. They talk about being made alive to god, or delivered from the law which condemned them etc. In these cases the point is that it is only through the work of Jesus that we are justified in the eyes of God, for all have sinned and fall short etc. The difficulty here of course is exactly what Aiki quotes in 1 Corinthians, that while all is lawful for me, not all is helpful. This could be understood to mean that no act I can now do is going to condemn me under the law because the law no longer has the power to condemn (because of the work of Jesus). This does not mean, however, that I am free to simply ignore the dictates of the law because violating them could still be in the category of “unhelpful” to me. This is especially likely since the law was perfect and given to the Jews as a way to live in perfect righteousness before God (along with a system of sacrifice for when they inevitably messed it up).

The real sticking point as I see it in the scriptures comes from that first passage Ephesians 2 14-16.

For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

Here it specifically says that in his person Jesus the enmity was put aside. What enmity? The division between Jewish and Gentile follower. This division centered around the Law that had been given to the Jews to follow but had not been practiced by the Gentiles. So Jesus abolishes this law in himself to reconcile the two sides and make the church (or what would become the church) one whole body. So what are we to make of this, it clearly says the law is abolished in the work of Jesus and yet in Matthew 5 the words on the lips of Jesus himself are “I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it”. The possibility that I think most likely is that in Ephesians what is being described is the demolishing of the power of the law to condemn. On the cross Jesus pays for all sins and so even if a believer sins by breaking the one of the Laws, that transgression is covered by Jesus, in a similar way to how the animal sacrifices had once cleansed the Jews who had broken the Law. Notice that this does not mean that we are free to carry on breaking the Law but rather that we are no longer condemned by it.

As I typed that I realized that I had shortchanged Aiki because another good point made was that Paul specifically teaches that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised. How can we reconcile that Paul is teaching the Gentiles to disobey this part of the Law, while Jesus (through the anonymous gospel writer) says that anyone who teaches someone to disobey the least of the dictates of the Law will be considered the least in the kingdom of heaven? In truth I am not sure. It could be the case that in order to advance the cause Paul is happy to be called the least in the kingdom. This is possible but entirely speculative and seems to fly in the face of other discussions by the apostles in the New Testament who are often wondering about who will be greatest in heaven. If anyone has a good idea here let me know!

So having dealt with the scriptures cited by Aiki I think we are still left with the challenges posed by Soyeong. If whoever wrote Matthew is to be believed, Jesus himself gives us the clearest teaching on this subject.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter,a]'>[a] not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaksb]'>[b] one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Whatever, fulfill means (and I like Soyeong’s thought here although more support for that position would be nice), it can not mean abolish, do away with, no longer require the following of etc. Breaking the least of these commandments makes you least in heaven , ie you have not lived in a righteous way according to Jesus. Moreover, as far as I know, heaven and earth have not passed away, nor have all things been accomplished. Some people will want to say that all things were accomplished on the cross. I would counter that while many things indeed could be said to have been fulfilled there, we can’t say all things. The new heavens and new earth were not established so that has yet to be accomplished for one. I suppose one could redefine “all things” to mean only “the provision of a way to salvation for all people” but I have yet to see a convincing case that this is entailed. We are left then with the statement that the law, in all its detail still stands today. The Law does not justify us, Jesus does; those who teach others to disobey even the smallest dictate of the Law will still end up in heaven (just at a lower rank). It seems clear therefore that Christians today should still consider themselves obligated to follow the righteous living as described by God in the Older Testament. I understand that this is uncomfortable (who would willingly give up shrimp or cotton polyester blends! Let alone decide to be circumcised later in life) but it does seem scriptural.

Looking forward to your thoughts everyone.

"But that's the Old Testament" Old vs? New: How are we to live

that your faith might rest in the power of God

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Opposed to Untruth.

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Fading curmudgeon

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Opposed to Untruth.

Orthodox Christian

Senior Member

Similar threads