Law fulfilled by Christ

[RandyPNW]

Matt 5.17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

I get this passage thrown at me a lot by Christians who want to promote the Law of Moses as still applicable. I got it thrown at me by a Jewish guy over 10 years ago who wanted to prove that Jesus did not advocate for NT Christianity, but rather, for the Law of Moses. And I'm getting it now from Sabbath Day advocates who even deny that Sabbath Law is associated with the Law of Moses! So what is this all about?

Jesus spoke these words about the Law of Moses while Israel was still under the Law of Moses. NT Christianity says that the Church is no longer under the Law, but instead under Christ alone. We are not under the Law of Moses. We are not under Sabbath Law. So did Jesus say that the Law of Moses was irrevocable in this passage?

I would say that Jesus was indicating that there were no loopholes for the Law of Moses, that it was irrevocable as long as it was in effect. Once the agreement, or covenant, was broken, it could not be applied as an agreement any longer, obviously. But Jesus was only talking about the Law as a current covenant, and as such was irrevocable under those terms.

So did God's word fail? Did the failure of the Law as a covenant agreement with Israel fail? Well, certainly the agreement failed, but the Law had been both a curse and a hope. It was a curse because it upheld the curse of death imposed since the garden of Eden. No matter how much good Israel did, no matter the fact they were in a covenant relationship with God, they would still die.

At the same time, the word of God in the Law promised something better as a fulfillment, a way to overcome death, and a way to redeem from sin forever. As such, the Law was the hope of final redemption, even though it confirmed the curse of death. As Jesus said, the seed must go into the earth and die before it can bear fruit. Jesus had to die on our behalf so that we could join him in his death in order to be reborn through his resurrection from the dead. Jesus had to suffer death for sinners in order to forgive them and give them a 2nd chance.

So as irrevocable as the Law was, as sure as it confirmed human death, as sure as it confirmed Israel's failure to obtain final redemption, so also it was a guarantee that death would be overcome and that Israel would be saved. Jesus would die for sinners and forgive them for all the sins they committed against God. Then he could grant them his spiritual life again, this time in the form of resurrection and eternal life.

The Law did not fail. It succeeded not through its own form, but in the form of its projection of Christ, who was its object all along. The Law was a seed planted so that through the resurrection of Christ we could grow and bear fruit for eternal life. We no longer live by the Law, but we live by the life of Christ, who died for us that we might live for him.

 

[timothyu]

I thought Jesus fulfilled the Law, becoming the Law not abolished it, by doing only the will of the Father (which is the foundation of the Law), the same we are and always have been expected to do since the Garden, and what will be the only way of life in the Kingdom.

 

[RandyPNW]

I thought Jesus fulfilled the Law, becoming the Law not abolished it, by doing only the will of the Father (which is the foundation of the Law), the same we are and always have been expected to do since the Garden, and what will be the only way of life in the Kingdom.

Jesus became, in a sense, a New Law, but not the Law of Moses. He preserved the Law while it remained in effect, but it was a Covenant that could be revoked. When Israel failed the Law, it was revoked. But it was revoke for everyone, by the plan of God.

So Jesus became a New Covenant, which we call the New Testament. The Law was abolished because its usefulness ended at the Cross.

 

[timothyu]

I fail to understand how God's wish ever since the Garden that we put His will ahead of ours could be revoked.

 

[d taylor]

Jesus became, in a sense, a New Law, but not the Law of Moses. He preserved the Law while it remained in effect, but it was a Covenant that could be revoked. When Israel failed the Law, it was revoked. But it was revoke for everyone, by the plan of God.

So Jesus became a New Covenant, which we call the New Testament. The Law was abolished because its usefulness ended at the Cross.

-
​

The law is not abolished, it is just, not in use for now.

 

[timothyu]

The law is not abolished, it is just, not in use for now.

so we need not put God's will ahead of our own for now?

 

[RandyPNW]

-
​

The law is not abolished, it is just, not in use for now.

I recognize that is your position. But it is not the orthodox Christian position. There's a reason why we call one "the OT" and the other "the NT."

Heb 9.15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

 

[d taylor]

I recognize that is your position. But it is not the orthodox Christian position. There's a reason why we call one "the OT" and the other "the NT."

Heb 9.15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

-
​

The law will be fully used and enforced during Jesus' reign and in His kingdom in the 1000 year millennium. As The Bible sates the law will not end till heaven and earth pass away.

 

[RandyPNW]

-
​

The law will be fully used and enforced during Jesus' reign and in His kingdom in the 1000 year millennium. As The Bible sates the law will not end till heaven and earth pass away.

No, you're not reading that correctly. Jesus is saying that *as long as the Law remains in effect as a covenant* nothing in heaven or on earth can free Israel from its obligations and judgments. It is the eternal word of God declaring sentence upon all men that they must die.

So until this old creation passes, all men must die. But the covenant itself can be annulled, and it was. I quoted you the passage from Hebrews. You choose not to believe it.

Mat 5.17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Jesus did not come to break his covenant with Israel under the Law. Clearly, he upheld the requirements of the Law which kept Israel in good standing with God. However, he came to fulfill the prophecy that anticipated Israel's failure under the Law, the breaking of that covenant, and their rejection of himself. That was his promise to "fulfill" the Prophets.

Nothing in creation can change until every aspect of what the Law testified to is fulfilled, and it is still being fulfilled. It isn't that the Law would continue to be in effect--it's annulment was also prophesied to take place in Jer 31.31.

What would have to be fulfilled is what the Prophets said the Law promised, which was the complete destruction of Jerusalem until Messiah is accepted. That meant that Israel would fail under the Law while only a remnant of them come to accept their Messiah. Then the whole nation would be restored.

The Law also pointed to its fulfillment in Messiah. And so, Messiah would make a New Covenant that displaces the Old Covenant of Law, in view of the fact the covenant with Israel failed. This also requires that the universe not pass away until this happens. And it has still been happening.

It's just that some things have already been fulfilled by Christ's 1st Coming, and some things are continuing to be fulfilled as stated in the Law, that all men must die. What the Law testified to--the sins of Israel and the death of all mankind, are still being fulfilled, and will continue to be fulfilled until the old world passes away.

It's not that the Law continues, as such, forever, but that what it testified to and what it portended in terms of prophecy would have to be fulfilled until the end of the present world. Jesus certainly continued to promote the Law while it was in effect. But Jesus also anticipated that Israel would fail under the covenant of the Law, in effect destroying the Law and temple worship. This meant its annulment.

And so Jesus said, while the Law was still in effect as a covenant, that every element of the Law was required of Israel and portended some things would happen, including Israel's failure under the then-current covenant and the ultimate death of all men. These things are still happening at present even though the covenant of Law has long since been abandoned by God.

What has not been abandoned by God, however, are His promises to Abraham concerning Israel's salvation and concerning the salvation of many nations. These things too are still happening.

Let me paraphrase it for you: The universe will not pass away until everything that the Law portended is fulfilled, including everything that was prophesied under the Law, including the end of the Law itself. It is not saying that every law will remain intact, as is, until the end of the universe, but that *what every letter means* will be fulfilled before the end of the universe.

 

[d taylor]

No, you're not reading that correctly. Jesus is saying that *as long as the Law remains in effect as a covenant* nothing in heaven or on earth can free Israel from its obligations and judgments. It is the eternal word of God declaring sentence upon all men that they must die.

So until this old creation passes, all men must die. But the covenant itself can be annulled, and it was. I quoted you the passage from Hebrews. You choose not to believe it.

Mat 5.17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Jesus did not come to break his covenant with Israel under the Law. Clearly, he upheld the requirements of the Law which kept Israel in good standing with God. However, he came to fulfill the prophecy that anticipated Israel's failure under the Law, the breaking of that covenant, and their rejection of himself. That was his promise to "fulfill" the Prophets.

Nothing in creation can change until every aspect of what the Law testified to is fulfilled, and it is still being fulfilled. It isn't that the Law would continue to be in effect--it's annulment was also prophesied to take place in Jer 31.31.

What would have to be fulfilled is what the Prophets said the Law promised, which was the complete destruction of Jerusalem until Messiah is accepted. That meant that Israel would fail under the Law while only a remnant of them come to accept their Messiah. Then the whole nation would be restored.

The Law also pointed to its fulfillment in Messiah. And so, Messiah would make a New Covenant that displaces the Old Covenant of Law, in view of the fact the covenant with Israel failed. This also requires that the universe not pass away until this happens. And it has still been happening.

It's just that some things have already been fulfilled by Christ's 1st Coming, and some things are continuing to be fulfilled as stated in the Law, that all men must die. What the Law testified to--the sins of Israel and the death of all mankind, are still being fulfilled, and will continue to be fulfilled until the old world passes away.

It's not that the Law continues, as such, forever, but that what it testified to and what it portended in terms of prophecy would have to be fulfilled until the end of the present world. Jesus certainly continued to promote the Law while it was in effect. But Jesus also anticipated that Israel would fail under the covenant of the Law, in effect destroying the Law and temple worship. This meant its annulment.

And so Jesus said, while the Law was still in effect as a covenant, that every element of the Law was required of Israel and portended some things would happen, including Israel's failure under the then-current covenant and the ultimate death of all men. These things are still happening at present even though the covenant of Law has long since been abandoned by God.

What has not been abandoned by God, however, are His promises to Abraham concerning Israel's salvation and concerning the salvation of many nations. These things too are still happening.

-
​

You should familiarize yourself with Micah 4, which describes the 1000 year millennium rule of Jesus. For out of Zion the law shall go forth.

Many nations shall come and say,
“Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
He will teach us His ways,
And we shall walk in His paths.”
For out of Zion the law shall go forth,
And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

May be this short article will help you come to see and understand.
https://faithalone.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/3_Hodges-LAW-AND-GRACE.pdf

 

[RandyPNW]

-
​

You should familiarize yourself with Micah 4, which describes the 1000 year millennium rule of Jesus. For out of Zion the law shall go forth.

Many nations shall come and say,
“Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
He will teach us His ways,
And we shall walk in His paths.”
For out of Zion the law shall go forth,
And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

May be this short article will help you come to see and understand.
https://faithalone.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/3_Hodges-LAW-AND-GRACE.pdf

I don't need to.
1) Hebrews 9 indicates the Old Covenant had been passing away with Christ's death and with the destruction of the temple. The New Covenant had been established with Christ's death, annulling the Law of Moses for all of Christianity, Jew and Gentile.
2) Jer 31.31 indicated that the New Covenant would displace the Law at Sinai.

So what does this mean but that God's Law will continue via an entirely new covenant, one that is unlike the Law at Sinai? It would be a continuation of the Law as its fulfillment, as its replacement.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Jesus became, in a sense, a New Law, but not the Law of Moses. He preserved the Law while it remained in effect, but it was a Covenant that could be revoked. When Israel failed the Law, it was revoked. But it was revoke for everyone, by the plan of God.

So Jesus became a New Covenant, which we call the New Testament. The Law was abolished because its usefulness ended at the Cross.

The law has certainly not passed away. Note what Jesus said:

Mat 5:17-20 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus plainly states he did not come to destroy the law. He goes on to say whoever breaks one of the least of the commandments will be called least in the Kingdom of God. The one who teaches the commands will be great.

I have just finished reading the First Century Church Fathers, and all of them stressed the need for righteousness, and living by God's principles. They stressed that if we don't we will not be saved. This does not mean we slavishly follow rules on washings and purification, but we need to follow the morality of the law.

 

[RandyPNW]

The law has certainly not passed away. Note what Jesus said:

Mat 5:17-20 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus plainly states he did not come to destroy the law. He goes on to say whoever breaks one of the least of the commandments will be called least in the Kingdom of God. The one who teaches the commands will be great.

However, you're missing the entire picture and neglecting a few points.

1) Obviously, if God made a covenant with Israel via the Law, and He did, Jesus, God's Son, would *not* come to break that Law nor to destroy that Covenant. At the same time, as God's Son he would know that Israel would fail under that covenant, just as they did before the Babylonian exile.

Knowing that, Jesus sought to uphold the value of the Law all the while knowing that Israel would not uphold their end of the bargain. Thus, Jesus anticipated the failure of the Law as a covenant, though he would certainly not devalue what the Law had been trying to do.

2) Jesus upheld the requirements of the Law before the Law had gone passe. Obviously, while the covenant was still in effect Jesus would continue to require what the covenant required. Therefore he upheld every single requirement that the covenant required. This did not mean that the requirements of the covenant would be upheld once the agreement had been completely broken.

3) When Jesus said the Law must be fulfilled he was talking about what the Law had predicted, that Israel would fail under the Law and break their covenant with God. Every element of the Law indicated Israel's sinful condition and need for redemption. As such, it had predicted Jesus' death and Israel's need for his resurrection. This meant that Jesus would become the exclusive source of eternal life apart from a failed Law.

I have just finished reading the First Century Church Fathers, and all of them stressed the need for righteousness, and living by God's principles. They stressed that if we don't we will not be saved. This does not mean we slavishly follow rules on washings and purification, but we need to follow the morality of the law.

Yes, but the Church Fathers and all Christian leaders have stressed the righteousness of what James called the "Law of liberty," (James 1.25) which refers not to the Law of Moses, but rather, to Jesus' fulfillment of the Law in his own righteousness. The basic foundation of the Law, including temple, priesthood, and sacrificial system, was no longer needed in our participation in the righteousness of Christ. This was therefore *not* the Law of Moses, but rather, the Law of God as fulfilled in Christ.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Matt 5.17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

I get this passage thrown at me a lot by Christians who want to promote the Law of Moses as still applicable. I got it thrown at me by a Jewish guy over 10 years ago who wanted to prove that Jesus did not advocate for NT Christianity, but rather, for the Law of Moses. And I'm getting it now from Sabbath Day advocates who even deny that Sabbath Law is associated with the Law of Moses! So what is this all about?

Jesus spoke these words about the Law of Moses while Israel was still under the Law of Moses. NT Christianity says that the Church is no longer under the Law, but instead under Christ alone. We are not under the Law of Moses. We are not under Sabbath Law. So did Jesus say that the Law of Moses was irrevocable in this passage?

I would say that Jesus was indicating that there were no loopholes for the Law of Moses, that it was irrevocable as long as it was in effect. Once the agreement, or covenant, was broken, it could not be applied as an agreement any longer, obviously. But Jesus was only talking about the Law as a current covenant, and as such was irrevocable under those terms.

So did God's word fail? Did the failure of the Law as a covenant agreement with Israel fail? Well, certainly the agreement failed, but the Law had been both a curse and a hope. It was a curse because it upheld the curse of death imposed since the garden of Eden. No matter how much good Israel did, no matter the fact they were in a covenant relationship with God, they would still die.

At the same time, the word of God in the Law promised something better as a fulfillment, a way to overcome death, and a way to redeem from sin forever. As such, the Law was the hope of final redemption, even though it confirmed the curse of death. As Jesus said, the seed must go into the earth and die before it can bear fruit. Jesus had to die on our behalf so that we could join him in his death in order to be reborn through his resurrection from the dead. Jesus had to suffer death for sinners in order to forgive them and give them a 2nd chance.

So as irrevocable as the Law was, as sure as it confirmed human death, as sure as it confirmed Israel's failure to obtain final redemption, so also it was a guarantee that death would be overcome and that Israel would be saved. Jesus would die for sinners and forgive them for all the sins they committed against God. Then he could grant them his spiritual life again, this time in the form of resurrection and eternal life.

The Law did not fail. It succeeded not through its own form, but in the form of its projection of Christ, who was its object all along. The Law was a seed planted so that through the resurrection of Christ we could grow and bear fruit for eternal life. We no longer live by the Law, but we live by the life of Christ, who died for us that we might live for him.

I'm trying to understand what you are really saying. I made a comment on your latest post and now reading your previous post on the same subject. I haven't the slightest idea what you are trying to convey here. So my simple question.....Did Jesus Christ of Nazareth fulfill the law ? A yes or no will do. Thanks! Be blessed.

 

[timothyu]

From the Garden to this very moment God has asked us to put His will ahead of our own (o course we continually fail to do so). It is the basis of the Law. I fail to see how that can be dropped or changed.
I thought Jesus fulfilled the Law, becoming the Law, not abolished it, by doing only the will of the Father (which is the foundation of the Law). The same we are and always have been expected to do since the Garden, and what will be the only way of life in the Kingdom.

Why do people want to get others lost in details when the Law simply states His will ahead of our own. It is the solution to the woes of the word because as a result we will not have 8 billion people making everything about themselves.

 

[RandyPNW]

I'm trying to understand what you are really saying. I made a comment on your latest post and now reading your previous post on the same subject. I haven't the slightest idea what you are trying to convey here. So my simple question.....Did Jesus Christ of Nazareth fulfill the law ? A yes or no will do. Thanks! Be blessed.

Thanks Maria. It is difficult to convey for a reason. The reason is due to a conflation between what the Law meant and what the component parts of the Law were while it remained in effect. My argument is that the Law was a covenant never meant to be kept in effect for eternity, but was continuous only so long as it remained unbroken. However, Israel would inevitably break the agreement, and its continuity would come to an end at some point.

I just tried to explain this on another forum, and I'll reproduce the argument here in case it helps. But again, it becomes difficult because Jesus was speaking while the Law was in effect. At that point he advocated for complete adherence to the Law. This is very different from stating that the Law had eternal continuity, which he *was not* stating. Here goes....

What causes confusion for some in this passage is its insistence that Jews keep every statute of the Law, which certainly was the case while that covenant was still in effect. But they take this time-connected requirement and conflate it with Jesus' statement that every single element of the Law must continue to remain meaningful until the end of the world.

Let's take a look at these 2 ideas, and distinguish them so that they are not conflated, confusing the meaning. One, there is no question that the Law was a covenant. The covenant had been established with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob well before the Law was given. But when the nation had grown into a nation, they were taken to Sinai where this covenant was squarely built upon the Law.

In the NT Scriptures it is argued by Paul that the Law and the Promises are distinct, because one is conditional, subject to failure, while the other is eternal and unconditional. This means that the covenant, which can be broken, can fail, whereas the promises were conditioned on God's fidelity and can never fail.

How can this be resolved? It is stated, as a matter of fact, that the Law was never intended to be successful over the long haul. From a simple reading of the last part of Deuteronomy it can be understood that God anticipated the failure of national Israel in the end and throughout their history. This was a conditional covenant that would fail!

The Promises, on the other hand, gave hope to Israel in the midst of this fatalistic covenant, because they were assured that God's word can never fail and that somehow Israel would succeed despite their inevitable failure under the covenant.

So let's return to what Jesus said. He indicated, while Israel was still under this covenant, that they should remain completely devoted to it in the hope that God would somehow enable them to prevail regardless of the inevitable failure. And he indicated that though the Law would fail and result in his own death and in Israel's ultimate exile that every aspect of the Law would be fulfilled, both its own demise and the very hope it tried to bring for Israel's future.

That means that every element of the Law could not be sacrificed so as to preserve this testimony. It was just as the book of Revelation indicated--do not mess with the words of this prophecy. Do not take away anything that is said, and do not add anything that is not there.

Both elements had to be preserved in the full testimony of the Law--every jot and tittle (characters that gave meaning to Israel's alphabet). It was the *meaning* of the Law that had to be preserved, and not its covenant continuity. It was its *message* that had to be preserved, which would be secured by strict adherence to it while it was in effect.

Strict adherence to the Law meant both things, that Israel had to prevail in righteousness and that it would prevail only by God's mercy. The entire Law was predicated on God's mercy, because even the most righteousness they could produce was insufficient if they did not provide animal offerings and sacrifices, along with purification ceremonies, and recognition of the need for human conformity to God's rules of redemption. Redemption implied the need for mercy, and that human works were insufficient for Salvation.

This is the testimony that Israel's compliance to the Law hoped to state--the need for both righteousness and mercy, and not the need to preserve the covenant itself. In Jer 31.31 it became clear that Israel's failure was tantamount to the inability of the covenant of Sinai to prevail over the long run. Salvation would come by a new covenant, based on mercy.

So what exactly is it that renders the Law meaningful, in every element, until the end of the world? It is the ultimate failure of Israel to be justified by an obsolete Law, as well as the judgment against all men that they must die and must somehow be saved by the righteousness of Christ. This is what Jesus was implying, though he was doing it while the Law remained in effect. I wish I could be clearer about this!

 

[Aviel]

"Christ is the END... OF... THE...Law, for Righteousness, to/for everyone who believes".

'"Jesus has redeemed us (the born again) from... the.. .curse...of...the Law"...

what is that curse?

1.) "The law is the power of sin, and the power of sin, is the Law"

2.) The dominion of the Law, is that POWER>.. (see #1).

So, once we are born again....we are '" NOT under the law, but UNDER Grace".

 

[timothyu]

but UNDER Grace

Grace merely gave us something beyond the initial punishment of death. God did not have to but gave us the Kingdom, a second chance if we learn form our self centered mistakes.. That is the grace. We are still responsible for rejecting our selfish ways and following Jesus' 2 commandments, that we put God's will ahead of our own, which is loving all as self including enemies. To not do so makes a person a mere Lord Lord and in their case grace was for nothing.

 

[pasifika]

From the Garden to this very moment God has asked us to put His will ahead of our own (o course we continually fail to do so). It is the basis of the Law. I fail to see how that can be dropped or changed.
I thought Jesus fulfilled the Law, becoming the Law, not abolished it, by doing only the will of the Father (which is the foundation of the Law). The same we are and always have been expected to do since the Garden, and what will be the only way of life in the Kingdom.

Why do people want to get others lost in details when the Law simply states His will ahead of our own. It is the solution to the woes of the word because as a result we will not have 8 billion people making everything about themselves.

hi, so what law? the law that requires works or Law that requires Faith? see Rom 3:27

 

[timothyu]

hi, so what law?

See#15