The Book of Hebrews

[Splayd]

Splayd, it's not that I don't trust you or anyhing like that, but this seems a little too convenient an explanation. Do you have a source for all of this I can find?

OK - I've found examples and evidence from primary sources for everything now except for the "fulling the law"/"destroying the law" comments. I've come across many many secondary sources that basically say exactly what I said without presenting an example and I've found many comparable phrases in modern Judaism, but I'll keep looking for a primary source from that era to present for you. I know I've seen some, I just have to find them.

I assume that and the bit about the rabbinical formula of "you have heard..." "but you must say" are the 2 main things you wanted referenced. Perhaps the most famous rabbi to use that sort of formula was a Jewish contemporary of Jesus called Rabbi Ishmael. Fortunately he's also often cited in the Talmud. Consider Melkita 3a, 6a.

The rest should be common knowledge and/or easy to verify with a simple google search but if you'd like citations on anything else I presented please let me know.

Peace

 

[Loveaboveall]

Loveaboveall, let's look at this first passage again. This time let me highlight it a bit differently....

Romans 2:13-15 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.

What is this law the is written on the Gentiles heart? Whatever it is, it cannot be the OT law! The passage is explicitly clear about that in more than one place. It CANNOT be the same as the "Law written on their hearts" that you referred to earlier because it...

1. Only applies to Gentiles, implying only Gentiles are saved.
2. Does not refer to Christian Gentiles, but ALL Gentiles implying that ALL Gentiles are God's People and all Jews are not.

So again, why refer a Gentile to a law he was never under in the first place?

As for what "the law" is in Romans, I believe it is OT law. Notice it is mentioned when speaking to Jews and this fits the context of Gal. 4:20-31.

So what is it? It is the "moral law", "written on their hearts". What tangible evidence is there that it exists? A conscience and the ability to judge others. Where did we get such an ability? I believe in the Garden from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. So now we have THREE laws...

1. An OT Law - Jews
2. A moral law - Gentiles
3. A "Law of Christ/liberty" - The standard which applies to the conditions we live under today.

But Paul doesn't ask in Gal. 4, "Why do you want to go back to the Old Covenant?" in verse 21. He asks, "Why do you want to go back to the old law?", which is basically the same question I guess I'm asking too.

It appears you have missed the point of why Paul wrote these things to the Jews.

It appears that the Jews of Rome felt they were better than the gentile christians. Paul is writing this to the church which was composed of Jews AND Gentiles. In this context:

Paul is explaining to the Jews in Rome that it means nothing to God who their father was! It matters not that they have been circumcised (which was a sign they were God's people) he says circumcison is of the heart later in chapter 2. The gentiles spoken of in vs 13-15 were the christian gentiles. They had to be christian! For God cannot write His law on a heart that is not humbled to Him. If this were so everyone would be covered by the new covenant of grace.

In galatians, the issue was circumcision. The Jews wanted to have the gentiles circumcised. This is what Paul is asking, why do you want to go back to the old law of circumcision, when it is of the heart anyways! If you circumcise than you also must keep the rest of the law including the sacrifices. They were still wanting to keep the feasts that pointed to Jesus which would nullify their belief in Jesus. Do you want to do that? is what He is asking them. He was not referring to the Law of God that defines sin, for He would have upheld this law that they keep it!

 

[JDIBe]

It appears you have missed the point of why Paul wrote these things to the Jews.

It appears that the Jews of Rome felt they were better than the gentile christians. Paul is writing this to the church which was composed of Jews AND Gentiles. In this context:

Paul is explaining to the Jews in Rome that it means nothing to God who their father was! It matters not that they have been circumcised (which was a sign they were God's people) he says circumcison is of the heart later in chapter 2. The gentiles spoken of in vs 13-15 were the christian gentiles. They had to be christian! For God cannot write His law on a heart that is not humbled to Him. If this were so everyone would be covered by the new covenant of grace.

I can't see that. Notice that verses 13-15 are a modifier of the preceding verses. (Notice the parentheses in vs 14...)

Rom 2:10 but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek:
11 for there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law;
13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:

Whatever this is, it cannot be the same "law written on the hearts" in Jeremiah you refer to because:

1. The term "Gentile" is generic. Does the word "Jew" in Romans 2 refer to only "Jewish Christians?
2. v 12 says these "without the law" will perish.
3. v 13 refers to "doers" and you state that one does not have to "do" anything under the New Law.
4. v 15 says "among themselves" and modifies v 1 of Chapter 2 perfectly.

Similar phrasing, but something different. What that is, I think I know now. I'm still trying to piece it together.

To extend what you said, I think a more accurate picture of the church at Rome is that it also had some Gentile Christians who thought they were better than the Jewish ones as well.

The purpose of the first part of Romans is to prove "we are all in the same boat", Jew or Gentile. Then Paul can proceed to provide a remedy.

I'm working on something that I think can reconcile this whole mess. I hope to have it up by the end of the day for our consideration.

 

[JDIBe]

Ok, definitions for the purposes of this discussion:

1. "Moral Law": A basic understanding of right and wrong, plus at least a vague notion that there is a God. (Romans 1:19-21). Perhaps, it could be called "eternal law". All humans have this basic understanding. This is the Law spoken of in Romans 2:1,14-16. Splayd and Loveaboveall, when you speak of "law that never changes", I think you are indirectly referring to this.

Rom 2:1 Wherefore thou art without excuse, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judges another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest dost practise the same things.
...
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);
16 in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ.

Where and how was this "law" obtained?

Genesis 3:1-7
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which Jehovah God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat:
3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

2. The "Old Law": The Law of the Covenant with Israel, given to the Jews. Also for simplicity, includes the "Patriarical Law" when God spoke directly to the Patriarchs before the 10 Commandments. (This law was gradually revealed and not written down in one place as well.)

3. The "New Law" or "Law of Liberty/ Christ": The moral and ethical teachings of Christ and all of the teachings of the Apostles.

4. "Under": That set of conditions one finds himself in. (See post #64 for an example)


One could (try to) keep the "Moral Law" perfectly and be in a right state with God. However, there are certain important shortcomings with the "Moral Law"...

1. It does not provide a way back to God, if broken.
2. It does not provide insight into your purpose in life.
3. It does not provide insight into your relationship to, and with God.
4. It does not provide insight into where you will go when you die.

It only shows you "good or bad". All of these other questions must be answered in the other two Laws.

It is important to note that the "Moral Law" is a subset of both the Old and New Law. This explains why many laws in the OT and NT are the same. For example:

Deu 5:17 Thou shalt not kill.
---
Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire.

(I would still contend these commands are different, but for the sake of discussion...)

But the "Moral Law" is NOT the NT or OT Law. The Old Law or the New Law cannot be totally derived simply with knowledge of the "Moral Law". This explains why many of the laws are different. For example:

Lev 12:1 And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman conceive seed, and bear a man-child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of the impurity of her sickness shall she be unclean.
3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
4 And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
5 But if she bear a maid-child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her impurity; and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
---
1Ti 3:8 Deacons in like manner must be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;........(etc., etc.)

The Old and New provide insight into purpose, specific ways, and relationship with God that the "Moral Law" does not. The Old provides an "imperfect, unfulfilled" way back that the New does perfectly. However, one cannot choose which Law (Old or New) they wish to be "under". We are in the Christian Dispensation and that is what we are to follow.

I think this might solve some discrepancies between us. Any comments from anyone involved?

 

[- DRA -]

Baptism is not an act, I have said this before and I will say it again. It is not an act/work of a "new law". There is no "new law" attached to the new covenant. Baptism is a submission, allowing a person to dunk you in water, and allowing the Holy spirit to wash you clean by the blood of Jesus.

The gentiles were saved! They were not under the condmenation of the law because they had ACCEPTED the grace offered by God. They could not have had the law of God written on their hearts if they had not accepted Jesus and allowed Him into their hearts. It doesn't work that way.

Here, I believe, is the flaw in your whole understanding of this subject. The law spoken of here is not the law of Moses, it is not the OT, it is not the Torah. It is the oracles of God (Romans 3:2) the Law of God that defines sin.

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.

When you interpret the "law" in Romans as the "Law of Moses" then you have to harmonize it with Col 2 and then you start getting into some problems and then it snowballs from there. The law of Moses and the Law of God that define sin our separate and distinct and must be treated that way when interpreting these scriptures, especially the writings of Paul.

Here you see where the snowball effect leads to. Now you look at the Law of Moses as being abolished so there must be a "new law" that must be obeyed. However, if you understand that Hebrews 5:9 is speaking of obedience to the Law of God through the working of the Holy Spirit AFTER one has accepted jesus and become a child of God under the new covenant of grace you have no problems. OBEDIENCE to the Law of God only occurs AFTER one is saved. Baptism is not a "work" it is a humbling of the body allowing a person to dunk you in water as our heart is to be humbled allowing the HS to cleanse it.

Here, I believe you use the "law of Christ" to describe a "new law" under the new covnenat. In reality this the the same Law of God that defines sin that Paul speaks of. The same law that is obeyed AFTER one has accepted grace and the promise of the new covenant. Then this law is written on your heart and the fruits are exhibited through you.

John 15:1-5 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every [branch] that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Here Jesus is describing the new covenant. Works of the Law FOLLOW the grafting into the vine.

Baptism is not a work.

The Spirit can CONVICT and the Spirit can CHANGE. The first the Holy Spirit works on every single soul until the day they die. The second can only happen with a humbling of the person to allow the change.

They obeyed the spirit's call to repent and allow the HS to wash them clean and change them into a new creature.

See above on John 15. Love for others only comes AFTER the grafting into the vine.

We are no longer a slave to sin AFTER we have humbled ourselves and confessed to God accepting His free gift of grace, and outwardly allowing a person to dunk us in water signifying we are now taking on Jesus' name and should be called a child of God.

Maybe you could teach me how to harmonize then. Could you please look at the verses I posted earlier and harmonize them with your doctrine of works?

If believing that you are saved by faith and not any works of the law is calvinistic then I guess I am in agreement with him on that point. I do not believe that God predetermined who would recieve this free gift. Choice is not a work.

Response moved over to the "Is Baptism necessary for Salvation?" thread.

 

[Splayd]

Hey John,

Good post and some interesting thoughts. I don't entirely agree with your analysis (mind you, I seldom entirely agree with anyone ) but I also don't think we're too far apart in our understanding. I'll ponder your post a little more.

Thanks

 

[Loveaboveall]

JDIBE I appreciate your thoughts and will post when respond when more time permits.

 

[JDIBe]

No problem guys. Take you time. Just throwing it out for discussion. Modify if you want.

 

[- DRA -]

Ok, definitions for the purposes of this discussion:

1. "Moral Law": A basic understanding of right and wrong, plus at least a vague notion that there is a God. (Romans 1:19-21). Perhaps, it could be called "eternal law". All humans have this basic understanding. This is the Law spoken of in Romans 2:1,14-16. Splayd and Loveaboveall, when you speak of "law that never changes", I think you are indirectly referring to this.

Rom 2:1 Wherefore thou art without excuse, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judges another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest dost practise the same things.
...
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);
16 in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ.

Where and how was this "law" obtained?

Genesis 3:1-7
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which Jehovah God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat:
3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

2. The "Old Law": The Law of the Covenant with Israel, given to the Jews. Also for simplicity, includes the "Patriarical Law" when God spoke directly to the Patriarchs before the 10 Commandments. (This law was gradually revealed and not written down in one place as well.)

3. The "New Law" or "Law of Liberty/ Christ": The moral and ethical teachings of Christ and all of the teachings of the Apostles.

4. "Under": That set of conditions one finds himself in. (See post #64 for an example)


One could (try to) keep the "Moral Law" perfectly and be in a right state with God. However, there are certain important shortcomings with the "Moral Law"...

1. It does not provide a way back to God, if broken.
2. It does not provide insight into your purpose in life.
3. It does not provide insight into your relationship to, and with God.
4. It does not provide insight into where you will go when you die.

It only shows you "good or bad". All of these other questions must be answered in the other two Laws.

It is important to note that the "Moral Law" is a subset of both the Old and New Law. This explains why many laws in the OT and NT are the same. For example:

Deu 5:17 Thou shalt not kill.
---
Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire.

(I would still contend these commands are different, but for the sake of discussion...)

But the "Moral Law" is NOT the NT or OT Law. The Old Law or the New Law cannot be totally derived simply with knowledge of the "Moral Law". This explains why many of the laws are different. For example:

Lev 12:1 And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman conceive seed, and bear a man-child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of the impurity of her sickness shall she be unclean.
3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
4 And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
5 But if she bear a maid-child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her impurity; and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
---
1Ti 3:8 Deacons in like manner must be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;........(etc., etc.)

The Old and New provide insight into purpose, specific ways, and relationship with God that the "Moral Law" does not. The Old provides an "imperfect, unfulfilled" way back that the New does perfectly. However, one cannot choose which Law (Old or New) they wish to be "under". We are in the Christian Dispensation and that is what we are to follow.

I think this might solve some discrepancies between us. Any comments from anyone involved?

Good points.

I hadn't really considered God's basic moral laws as a subset of the O.T., but can certainly see the validity in viewing it as such. Take Romans 2:14a - " For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law" (NKJV). Obviously, the Gentile were not under the law of Moses. However, as you say, they did have "a basic understanding of right and wrong, plus at least a vague notion that there is a God. (Romans 1:19-21)." I think that well explains God's point here in Romans 2, and is also the point being made in 1 Cor. 5:1. The Gentiles knew right from wrong. And, a guy sleeping with, what I suspect was his mother-in-law (oops, I meant step-mother), was taboo.

Going back to the idea of God having basic moral laws, I think that is evident when one studies the book of Jonah. Nineveh was a Gentile city. And, there was a need for them to repent. That implies they were being charged by God with wrong-doing. Which implies/infers there was accountability and responsibility to a moral standard. What standard? They had no written standard that God had delivered to them as the Israelites had. But, they still were expected to know right from wrong.

Today, both Jews and Gentiles are under God's new law i.e. Heb. 7:12.

 

[Loveaboveall]

Today, both Jews and Gentiles are under God's new law i.e. Heb. 7:12.

I am still mulling over your points JD.

DRA, how is the "new law" different than what JD refers to as the "moral law"? Is the WHOLE world under this "new law" or is it just christian Jews and Gentiles?

 

[Splayd]

OK - I've thought about your post a little more.

I suppose I see the "Old Law" and the "New Law" more as definitions or expressions of how to keep the "Moral Law".

Even before the Mosaic Law was recorded, the ceremonial aspects were understood to some extent. Obviously Cain and Abel understood the concept of sacrifice and Noah understood the difference between clean and unclean animals. You'd include that as part of the "Old Law" but I'd suggest that the general ceremonial themes expressed in the OT were also recognised by cultures apart from Israel. They'd just become distorted. I'd also suggest that the same themes continue into the "New Law".

The "Old Law" didn't introduce law as much as it defined law. The same is true of the "New Law". The underlying principals, morals and standards are all still there. What's changed is that the details of the ceremonial aspects were realised in Christ. As such, the expression of the law necessarily changed. We don't have to keep all the details of the letter because they're applied in, through and by Christ.

Peace

 

[Loveaboveall]

Here are some thoughts I have after reading and pondering your post JDIBe.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying the "moral law" are the principles that all the other laws are based off of? Is that right? I will use this premise as I speak forward.

What I am having a hard time understanding from your point of view is this, What is the difference between the patriarchal law, the 10 commandments and the "new law". Is there any difference? We know that there was sin before Mt. Sinai, and we know that God had given His laws to His people. If you prefer to call it the "patriarchal law" that is fine, but I don't see any difference in that law and the 10 commandments. Note in Gen 26:5 Abraham kept God's laws. In Gen 4 Cain is told "sin is at the door". Gen 18:20 records Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their sin. Gen 39:9 records Joseph knowledge that adultery is a sin.

And there are many more examples, are you saying the patriarchal law is different or the same as the 10 commandments?

If you look at all the civil laws that are recorded in the "book of Moses" they are all based on the principles of the moral law, Here is a link to where you can study this further. http://blueletterbible.org/study/parallel/paral11.html
note it lists the 10 commandments, the ceremonial law, and then the political law based on the 10 commanments, I refer to this as the civil laws of the COI.

You state that the moral law is a subset also of the "new law" or the "law of liberty/Christ". I must ask the question. Did Christ change any of the principles or did He rightly interpret how they are to be applied in God's eyes? What I am asking is this, Did Christ ever change any laws or did He bring out their true meaning?

How is the "Old law" different then the "New Law" in regards to what is sin and what is not sin? Has sin changed? If not then why do we say there is a "new law" when it is the same law as it has always been? Because in the process of saying there is a new law, we bind people under this new law because we say it is part of the new covenant. Thus by saying this, we attach salvation to the keeping of this "new law".

We cannot keep a law TO be saved. God writes His law on our hearts instead of tablets of stone in the new covenant. (this is where God has always intended His law to be even in the old covenant!) Has His law changed that is written on our hearts or by writing His law on our hearts does He change us? Yes, obedience to the moral law/Law of God is required but it is not us that keeps it, it is God working through us when we "Abide in Christ" who keeps the law in us.

This has been my point all along. Don't attach a "new law" to the new covnenat which puts us right back in bondage to a law that we were under in the old covenant. Instead, recognize that instead of God changing His law, He changes us so that we may keep His law. Will it ever be okay to murder, steal , lie etc? of course not. What about worship other Gods, idols, take the Lord's name in vain or profane what God has made holy? All of these are everlasting laws that are written on a christians heart so that they may live as Christ lived. In heaven we are going to be righteous, we will be living in perfect harmony with God and His holiness. But all of this can be ours today, not through or power of keeping any part of this law, for we can't with our carnal flesh. It is through Jesus living His perfect life in us that He prepares us to live with Him in heaven.

We do not obey to be saved, we obey because we ARE saved and Christ works obedience through us. This is the new covenant! There is no law attached to it that we must obey TO be saved. Thus, there is no "new law". It is the same law as it has always been, maybe Christ brought out the true meaning, the spirituality of the law, but did He change the law?

 

[JDIBe]

OK - I've thought about your post a little more.

I suppose I see the "Old Law" and the "New Law" more as definitions or expressions of how to keep the "Moral Law".

Not exactly. There are things that God told his people to do (unclean vs. clean, purification processes, circumcison, elders, deacons, ect.) that are not a part of "right or wrong", but rather what God wants from us.

Even before the Mosaic Law was recorded, the ceremonial aspects were understood to some extent. Obviously Cain and Abel understood the concept of sacrifice and Noah understood the difference between clean and unclean animals. You'd include that as part of the "Old Law" but I'd suggest that the general ceremonial themes expressed in the OT were also recognised by cultures apart from Israel. They'd just become distorted. I'd also suggest that the same themes continue into the "New Law".

Yes, I would agree there are some ceremonial aspects that show up in other cultures. Just as there are stories (such as the Great Flood) that show up as well. I would argue that all these things come from the fact that we all started in the same place. These stories were passed down thoughout the ages with minor to serious errors. I beleive sacrifices fall into this catagory.

1. I don't see how one who has never heard of such things could logically arrive at such specific conclusions as a calf or two turtle doves for forgiveness of sins by reasoning.
2. There are some cultures who do sacrifice in one form or another, but there are many more that don't. (I don't know the percentage)
3. Sacrifice in most cultures is done differently, and for a different reason in those other cultures. For example, in most cultures, sacrifice is done not for atonement, but as a "bribe", or a "thank you", or a payment for services rendered. (and no, if anyone out there thinks that those who believe in the "New Law" do the same, they seriously underestimate their brethern...)

But, is there something within all people that God put there that gives them a vague notion that they must pay for something and a sacrifice is required? That's a possibility. I'll think on it some more.

The "Old Law" didn't introduce law as much as it defined law. The same is true of the "New Law". The underlying principals, morals and standards are all still there. What's changed is that the details of the ceremonial aspects were realised in Christ. As such, the expression of the law necessarily changed. We don't have to keep all the details of the letter because they're applied in, through and by Christ.

Peace

Both the "Old Law" and the "New Law" both introduced law and new concepts. What the "Moral Law" does NOT do is answer the questions, "Why am I here?", "What does God want me to do?", "What is my purpose in life?", "Where am I going after this life?" All of these questions are answered (surprisingly, in different ways) in both the Old and New Law. As for your last statement, I would phrase it differently. I would say, there is a provision in the New Law for when we do err. I think it is the same thing, but a different emphasis.


BTW, I'm going on vacation for the next couple of weeks. I may not have access to a computer for a week or so, so if I don't answer, I'm not ignoring you. Please feel free to continue the discussion amongst yourselves. I'd be happy to answer any questions directed toward me when I get back. (I guess there is no time limit on this discussion)

Have a good week everybody......

 

[JDIBe]

Here are some thoughts I have after reading and pondering your post JDIBe.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying the "moral law" are the principles that all the other laws are based off of? Is that right? I will use this premise as I speak forward.

Not necessarily. The "Moral Law" does not address our purpose in life, etc. that the Old and New Law do. Many laws in both address moral law. But many others deal with things beyond "right and wrong".

What I am having a hard time understanding from your point of view is this, What is the difference between the patriarchal law, the 10 commandments and the "new law". Is there any difference? We know that there was sin before Mt. Sinai, and we know that God had given His laws to His people. If you prefer to call it the "patriarchal law" that is fine, but I don't see any difference in that law and the 10 commandments. Note in Gen 26:5 Abraham kept God's laws. In Gen 4 Cain is told "sin is at the door". Gen 18:20 records Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their sin. Gen 39:9 records Joseph knowledge that adultery is a sin.

And there are many more examples, are you saying the patriarchal law is different or the same as the 10 commandments?

If you look at all the civil laws that are recorded in the "book of Moses" they are all based on the principles of the moral law, Here is a link to where you can study this further. http://blueletterbible.org/study/parallel/paral11.html
note it lists the 10 commandments, the ceremonial law, and then the political law based on the 10 commanments, I refer to this as the civil laws of the COI.

You state that the moral law is a subset also of the "new law" or the "law of liberty/Christ". I must ask the question. Did Christ change any of the principles or did He rightly interpret how they are to be applied in God's eyes? What I am asking is this, Did Christ ever change any laws or did He bring out their true meaning?

How is the "Old law" different then the "New Law" in regards to what is sin and what is not sin? Has sin changed? If not then why do we say there is a "new law" when it is the same law as it has always been? Because in the process of saying there is a new law, we bind people under this new law because we say it is part of the new covenant. Thus by saying this, we attach salvation to the keeping of this "new law".

Yes, there are differences. What differences there are between the Patriachical and Old Law is hard to prove. There seem to be some new things given to Moses that do not appear earlier. However, not everything spoken to the Patriarchs is recorded, either. What is clear however, is THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER TO YOU AND ME! We are not under the Old Law anyway.

Eph 2:11-18
(11) Wherefore remember, that once ye, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands;
(12) that ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
(13) But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ.
(14) For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition,
(15) having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace;
(16) and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
(17) and he came and preached peace to you that were far off, and peace to them that were nigh:
(18) for through him we both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father.

As Gentiles, we were under the "Moral Law".

I would argue that Christ did change the meaning of the Law in the SOTM. Sometimes when people talk about keeping "the spirit of the law", they talk about it as if it means...
1. a close approximation or
2. some of it or
3. as far as makes me comfortable.

That is not the "spirit of the law" IMO. Keeping the spirit can mean (and I believe this is how Jesus portrays it in the SOTM) not only doing it but having the right attitude as well. (For one certainly cannot have the right attitude if one is not simply willing to do what He says) It is the difference between being a child (who does things because his parents tell him to) and being an adult (doing and understanding why, a long term perspective.)
There was a time when God allowed certain things (like easy divorce) because of the hardness of the people's hearts. Those days are gone. He does not "wink at ignorance" anymore. he now commands every man to repent.

As for a difference in the Old Law and the New Law, here is one clearcut example. I have been reluctant to bring it up directly in my discussions with you and Splayd (I indirectly referred to it earlier with Splayd) because I was afraid it hit a little too close to home. But it is the clearest example I know.

Lev 11:1-11
(1) And Jehovah spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
(2) Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the living things which ye may eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
(3) Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that may ye eat.
(4) Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that part the hoof: the camel, because he cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, he is unclean unto you.
(5) And the coney, because he cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, he is unclean unto you.
(6) And the hare, because she cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, she is unclean unto you.
(7) And the swine, because he parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, but cheweth not the cud, he is unclean unto you.
(8) Of their flesh ye shall not eat, and their carcasses ye shall not touch; they are unclean unto you.
(9) These may ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, that may ye eat.
(10) And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are an abomination unto you,
(11) and they shall be an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, and their carcasses ye shall have in abomination.

Mat 15:17-20
(17) Perceive ye not, that whatsoever goeth into the mouth passeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
(18) But the things which proceed out of the mouth come forth out of the heart; and they defile the man.
(19) For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings:
(20) these are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man.

Rom 14:14
(14) I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself: save that to him who accounteth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Now I understand that you do not eat what you do not eat for health reasons, and I respect that. But you must admit, this is a clear contradiction between the Old and New Law. "Unclean" clearly means something different in the New Law.

We cannot keep a law TO be saved. God writes His law on our hearts instead of tablets of stone in the new covenant. (this is where God has always intended His law to be even in the old covenant!) Has His law changed that is written on our hearts or by writing His law on our hearts does He change us? Yes, obedience to the moral law/Law of God is required but it is not us that keeps it, it is God working through us when we "Abide in Christ" who keeps the law in us.

This has been my point all along. Don't attach a "new law" to the new covnenat which puts us right back in bondage to a law that we were under in the old covenant. Instead, recognize that instead of God changing His law, He changes us so that we may keep His law. Will it ever be okay to murder, steal , lie etc? of course not. What about worship other Gods, idols, take the Lord's name in vain or profane what God has made holy? All of these are everlasting laws that are written on a christians heart so that they may live as Christ lived. In heaven we are going to be righteous, we will be living in perfect harmony with God and His holiness. But all of this can be ours today, not through or power of keeping any part of this law, for we can't with our carnal flesh. It is through Jesus living His perfect life in us that He prepares us to live with Him in heaven.

We do not obey to be saved, we obey because we ARE saved and Christ works obedience through us. This is the new covenant! There is no law attached to it that we must obey TO be saved. Thus, there is no "new law". It is the same law as it has always been, maybe Christ brought out the true meaning, the spirituality of the law, but did He change the law?

Again, you were never under the Old Covenant. Prove to me a Gentile is/was under the Old Covenant. No, this "New Law" does not put us back into bondage. Instead, it defines our purpose and gives us a clearer meaning of "the Promise". What I perceive here, is a preoccupation on our part on the law in the sense of morally right and wrong. What I believe we are missing is that fact that much of the New Law deals with is our eternal purpose, what it means to be holy, and living as a Child of God.
One of the most curious things about a study of the Old Law, is the lack of emphasis on eternity. The Israelites didn't think much about the afterlife. When you died you "slept with your forefathers" or went "into the pit". God's blessings were for here and now. If you didn't get them, you must have done something wrong. The "New Law" deals quite a bit with the afterlife. The blessings, and therefore the emphasis is on preparing for the life to come. The Old Law speaks of how to live as a blemished person here on earth. The New Law speaks of how to live as an unblemished Child of God concerned with, and headed for eternity.

What I think you are still confusing is "earning" vs. "doing". No, one cannot earn his salvation. It is a free gift of God. But that is not the same as "doing". When Naaman dipped himself in the Jordan river, he did not "earn" the right to be healed. It is not recorded that he went about bragging about his deeds. He did have to go to the river, though. Obedience is important even before you are a Child of God and especially after. You agree with this. You have said doctrine is important. The just shall LIVE by faith.

What I strongly disagree with is this notion that I can just lay on the couch and let the waves of love from Christ Jesus wash over me and not be concerned about the whole thing. Or that somehow after I am baptized, I suddenly have no free will or part in determining what I do or where I go. The Holy Spirit HELPS me live a faithful life. It does not do it for me. And the blood of Jesus takes care of when I don't. If it were the other way, doctrine would not be important. We would all have the same. Jesus should be upset with the H.S., instead of the church at Pergamum.

But faith and works are both essential parts of a Christian life. One needs both to be a balanced Christian.

 

[- DRA -]

DRA, how is the "new law" different than what JD refers to as the "moral law"? Is the WHOLE world under this "new law" or is it just christian Jews and Gentiles?

The "new law" refers to that given by Jesus, the "Mediator of a better covenant" (per Heb. 8:6).

As for God's moral law (what nature teaches us), I believe it is discussed in various ways in 1 Cor. 5:1, Romans 1:26-27, and I Cor. 11:14-15. Thus, these aspects also were included in the new law - the law of Christ. I believe the moral or natural law was also implied in O.T. books and prophesies addressed to Gentiles. They were not give a written code to follow as were the Israelites, but God still held them responsible and accountable to follow a basic moral standard and expected them to discern between right and wrong.

As for whom is under the "new law," everyone is. God's grace through Jesus has been extended to all (Titus 2:11, John 3:16). Those of every nation are admonished to fear the Lord, work righteousness, and be accepted by Him (Acts 10:34-35). Those that don't know God and don't obey the gospel of Christ will be punished (2 Thess. 1:8-9). Whether or not one acknowledges Jesus as Lord and submits to His law, all will appear before Him in judgement (2 Cor. 5:10).

 

[- DRA -]

OK - I've thought about your post a little more.

I suppose I see the "Old Law" and the "New Law" more as definitions or expressions of how to keep the "Moral Law".

Even before the Mosaic Law was recorded, the ceremonial aspects were understood to some extent. Obviously Cain and Abel understood the concept of sacrifice and Noah understood the difference between clean and unclean animals. You'd include that as part of the "Old Law" but I'd suggest that the general ceremonial themes expressed in the OT were also recognised by cultures apart from Israel. They'd just become distorted. I'd also suggest that the same themes continue into the "New Law".

The "Old Law" didn't introduce law as much as it defined law. The same is true of the "New Law". The underlying principals, morals and standards are all still there. What's changed is that the details of the ceremonial aspects were realised in Christ. As such, the expression of the law necessarily changed. We don't have to keep all the details of the letter because they're applied in, through and by Christ.

Peace

Here's the way I view the incident with Cain and Abel:
Hebrews 11:4a - By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did (NIV).
Romans 10:17a -
Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message.
Therefore, since Abel offerering was by faith, and faith is based on hearing God's message, I conclude that God told Cain and Abel what to do ... including instructions about what to offer. Cain did not heed the instruction and did not act by faith; and Abel did the opposite.

I am not inclined to think that Cain and Abel naturally understood the concept of sacrifice and what to offer. Rather, the scriptural evidence seems to suggest that God told them.

As for Noah's understanding of clean versus unclean animals, I understand that it is implied/inferred that God gave instructions about how to differentiate between clean and unclean. I am not convinced this knowledge comes naturally, as contrasted with what nature teaches in Rom. 1:26-29. Rather, I think God had to detail what made an animal unclean as he later did for the Israelites.

However, I agree that the "old law" didn't introduce the idea of law. I believe Genesis 2-3 and God's command about what to eat and what not to eat in the garden was man's introduction to law. Then, there was the flood and God's general condemnation of man. Then, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19.

As for the old law, we are admonished to learn from it per Romans 15:4. According to Heb. 8:13, the old covenant (that which the old law was based) is obsolete and vanished away. In what sense? It is no longer applicable for law today. However, that surely doesn't mean that it disappeared and is gone. As previously noted, we should learn from that law. It's just like the commands God gave to Adam and Eve in the garden. We know what God said, and we know that Adam and Eve made some really bad choices. Therefore, we should not follow their example. Although the details of our law are different today from theirs, the need for obedience and reverence for God and respect for His word is just as applicable today as it was back then. Therefore, combined with numerous other examples for us to consider, we should be better equipped to serve God today under the law of Christ.

 

[annie1speed]

If the question is whether or not God has changed His law, I have an analogy that may help.

Loveaboveall wrote:

Instead, recognize that instead of God changing His law, He changes us so that we may keep His law. Will it ever be okay to murder, steal , lie etc? of course not.

It is possible to have some of the same provisions in different laws.

Say for instance the state we live in has a 70 mph speed limit. And you don't want to break the law so you drive less than 70 miles per hour. When you cross the state line and enter another state, is it ok to drive 90 miles an hour then? NO, because the neighboring state also has a 70mph speed limit. Just because the old law has been changed, or maybe better to say replaced, doesn't mean that some of the same restrictions don't still apply.

If we examine the old and new law in this light, we were told specifically not to murder, steal and lie in the new law, so it shouldn't be viewed as an 'eternal' carryover from the old law.

Just a thought. Not nearly as scholarly as the other posts, but I hope you can see my point.

Annie

 

[Loveaboveall]

JDIBe,

It is refreshing to "discuss" while not debating or arguing! I appreciate your thoughtfulness and care even when disagreeing. Thankyou!

I do believe you may have misunderstood a few of my comments, which is more a fault of mine than yours. I sometimes wish I could communicate in writing better.

Not necessarily. The "Moral Law" does not address our purpose in life, etc. that the Old and New Law do. Many laws in both address moral law. But many others deal with things beyond "right and wrong".

Yes, there are differences. What differences there are between the Patriachical and Old Law is hard to prove. There seem to be some new things given to Moses that do not appear earlier. However, not everything spoken to the Patriarchs is recorded, either. What is clear however, is THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER TO YOU AND ME! We are not under the Old Law anyway.

Lets back up for a second and look at the big picture. Why are we in the predicament we are today with sin? Where did sin start? In heaven, with Lucifer right? What law was it that he broke that defined his sin? This is the law that is at the crux of all of my discussions. '

What law defines sin and has it changed? This is my question to the forum. Whether the new covenant or the old covenant, we "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". What does this mean? Does it mean that those under the new covenant broke a different law then those under the old covenant?

I define the "old law" that the people "did not continue in" as the law that defines sin. Not the ceremonial law. This may be where some confusion has its roots.

The Ceremonial law of ordinances and sacrifices, did not define sin, it was how God chose to deal with the peoples sins when they commited them. All to point them to the coming Messiah who would be the perfect sacrifice. They were forgiven when they offered a sin/trespass offering with Faith that God would forgive them.

So when you say, "We are not under the Old Law anyway." I have to agree and disagree! I agree becasue we are not UNDER the condemnation of sin, but I disagree because we ALL have sinned, thus we all have broken this law, which means if we can break we are still bound to keep it. And if we don't keep it we sin, but we have Jesus who, when confessed, forgives us of our sins, again. But there is still a law that defines sin, Has this law changed?

I believe that Ephesians 2 is speaking of the gentiles, which were at one time not under the covenant, because the COI failed to fulfill the covenant with God, which included taken the message of God's love to the WORLD. That is what is meant by the term, "kingdom of priests". God did not orginally plan to have the levites as a priesthood. The whole of Israel was to be a priesthood to the world, bringing the light of the gospel into the darkness of the heathen. They could have come into a covenant with God just as the COI if the COI had brought the light to them.

The law of ordinances I believe spoken of which brought enmity b/w the groups was the ceremonial law, which required a Jewish priesthood.

As Gentiles, we were under the "Moral Law".

Is this the law that defines sin?

I would argue that Christ did change the meaning of the Law in the SOTM. Sometimes when people talk about keeping "the spirit of the law", they talk about it as if it means...
1. a close approximation or
2. some of it or
3. as far as makes me comfortable.

That is not the "spirit of the law" IMO. Keeping the spirit can mean (and I believe this is how Jesus portrays it in the SOTM) not only doing it but having the right attitude as well. (For one certainly cannot have the right attitude if one is not simply willing to do what He says) It is the difference between being a child (who does things because his parents tell him to) and being an adult (doing and understanding why, a long term perspective.)
There was a time when God allowed certain things (like easy divorce) because of the hardness of the people's hearts. Those days are gone. He does not "wink at ignorance" anymore. he now commands every man to repent.

I would agree whole heartedly with you on this point. I did not intend to insinuate anything other than this. The only difference between legalism and true obedience is our attitude. The pharisees were legalistic, Christ called them out on this, they did not obey out of love they obeyed for their own benefit and show. (And in reality they really didn't obey the law in the letter, but they claimed to.)

Christ brought out the spirituality of the law by defining correctly its true meaning. If you have the right attitude you would realize that even wishing that someone were dead is the same as killing them, you have sinned by breaking the commandment, thou shalt not kill. He does not change the law, He brings out the spirit of it, what is meant by it, In essence it is a law of love. Each of the 10 commandments is a law that is based on love, if kept by the spirit, love will be the driving force. If kept by the letter and not the spirit, selfishness is the driving force.

This was the problem of the rich young ruler, He claimed to have kept all the commandments from childhood, but Jesus required the spirit of the law, LOVE. Love is putting God and others first, this is what He asked of the man, who then slunk off because it was too great of a request. He had too much of himself that he loved.

As for a difference in the Old Law and the New Law, here is one clearcut example. I have been reluctant to bring it up directly in my discussions with you and Splayd (I indirectly referred to it earlier with Splayd) because I was afraid it hit a little too close to home. But it is the clearest example I know.

Lev 11:1-11
(1) And Jehovah spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
(2) Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the living things which ye may eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
(3) Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that may ye eat.
(4) Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that part the hoof: the camel, because he cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, he is unclean unto you.
(5) And the coney, because he cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, he is unclean unto you.
(6) And the hare, because she cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, she is unclean unto you.
(7) And the swine, because he parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, but cheweth not the cud, he is unclean unto you.
(8) Of their flesh ye shall not eat, and their carcasses ye shall not touch; they are unclean unto you.
(9) These may ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, that may ye eat.
(10) And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are an abomination unto you,
(11) and they shall be an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, and their carcasses ye shall have in abomination.

Mat 15:17-20
(17) Perceive ye not, that whatsoever goeth into the mouth passeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
(18) But the things which proceed out of the mouth come forth out of the heart; and they defile the man.
(19) For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings:
(20) these are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man.

Rom 14:14
(14) I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself: save that to him who accounteth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

I understand where you are coming from with this, JDIBe. I could disagree with your interpretation of the verses from Paul's writings, but there is a more important point.

God wanted to set apart the COI, so the world could see they were different, in essence HOLY. They were to be a light, the heathen were to look at them and want what they had. Part of this setting apart was the diet laws. I believe their was also health reasons (see Exodus 15:26), but that is not the main point of discussion here. They were to be DIFFERENT.

God calls us out today also, we are to look different, act different, speak differently. In everything we do we are to reflect God's image. We are to be a light to the gentiles, a holy nation, a royal priesthood. God has called us out of the world just as He called the COI out of egypt. That is the most important point we should get from Leviticus 11, Has God changed how we are to be different? This changes with society. How people look and dress affects in what way we are to be different. It is more about culture, then specific commands. The political/civil laws were specific commands BASED off the 10 principles found written on the tablets. Here is a good link which demonstrates what I am speaking of.

http://blueletterbible.org/study/parallel/paral11.html

 

[Loveaboveall]

Now I understand that you do not eat what you do not eat for health reasons, and I respect that. But you must admit, this is a clear contradiction between the Old and New Law. "Unclean" clearly means something different in the New Law.

If viewed from the above perspective I believe you would agree that anything that is sinful is "unclean" and this can be found in both covenants.

Again, you were never under the Old Covenant. Prove to me a Gentile is/was under the Old Covenant.

Joshua 6:5 And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel [even] unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.

Ex 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Ex 12:48 explains why there was such a problem with the Jews wanting to require the gentiles to be circumcised. Any stranger(gentile) must be circumcised to be considered part of God's people. Just as today, we look to baptism in the same way.

No, this "New Law" does not put us back into bondage. Instead, it defines our purpose and gives us a clearer meaning of "the Promise". What I perceive here, is a preoccupation on our part on the law in the sense of morally right and wrong. What I believe we are missing is that fact that much of the New Law deals with is our eternal purpose, what it means to be holy, and living as a Child of God.

The law written on our hearts which is spoken of in the new covenant, is the law which, when kept will draw all men unto God because of our works. This is what Peter speaks of so eloquently.

1 Peter 2:9-12 But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past [were] not a people, but [are] now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. Dearly beloved, I beseech [you] as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by [your] good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.

You see, when we keep the "moral law", the law that defines sin, the Law of God, however you want to term it, we are a witness to the world. By our good works, that Jesus works through us, the heathen/gentiles may glorify God because they will want what you have! This is what is meant by these verse in Hebrews 8.

vs 10-11 For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

One of the most curious things about a study of the Old Law, is the lack of emphasis on eternity. The Israelites didn't think much about the afterlife. When you died you "slept with your forefathers" or went "into the pit". God's blessings were for here and now. If you didn't get them, you must have done something wrong. The "New Law" deals quite a bit with the afterlife. The blessings, and therefore the emphasis is on preparing for the life to come. The Old Law speaks of how to live as a blemished person here on earth. The New Law speaks of how to live as an unblemished Child of God concerned with, and headed for eternity.[

Interesting perspective... I can agree to a point with the idea that the jews did not have a firm grasp of eternal life and a ressurection. The Pharisees believed in a ressurection, the saducees did not.

The big thing I would change in your quote above is the terms "old law" and "new law". For I believe it would better read "old covenant" and "new covenant". The new covenant speaks of Jesus and His ressurection which gives us hope as He was the firstfruits of those who will be raised into eternal life. This is part of the hope of the new covenant. The old covenant did not have a resurrection. It spoke of a persons forgiveness for sin, but it did not directly address a resurection. I can agree with you on this point. But as I said above, it would better read "covenant" instead of "law". For the sin/trespass offering in both covenants is for the breaking of the same law, the law that defines sin. What changed with the covenants is how sin is DEALT with. Is it dealt with by the death of an animal or the death of Jesus. This is the difference which makes the new covenant SO MUCH better! Sin is sin, but how God deals with what must be done is different.

What I think you are still confusing is "earning" vs. "doing". No, one cannot earn his salvation. It is a free gift of God. But that is not the same as "doing". When Naaman dipped himself in the Jordan river, he did not "earn" the right to be healed. It is not recorded that he went about bragging about his deeds. He did have to go to the river, though. Obedience is important even before you are a Child of God and especially after. You agree with this. You have said doctrine is important. The just shall LIVE by faith.

Your point is noted... I see what you mean by "earning" and "doing". Many would label me a "legalist" because I believe we must keep the Law of God. Some, as you noted earlier, would like to subtract or take away from parts of it that God "doesn't care" if we really do or not. I agree whole heartedly with your stance on the "spirituality of the law" that it is about the attitude. The works are the same but the attitude is different. On that note, I do not believe that one can have the right attitude without "Abiding in Christ" with a change that comes about by the HS. One can "Do" all he wants but if it is not of the right attitude it does not matter. This is the crux of the baptism question. Basically, what came first the chicken or the egg?

What I strongly disagree with is this notion that I can just lay on the couch and let the waves of love from Christ Jesus wash over me and not be concerned about the whole thing. Or that somehow after I am baptized, I suddenly have no free will or part in determining what I do or where I go. The Holy Spirit HELPS me live a faithful life. It does not do it for me. And the blood of Jesus takes care of when I don't. If it were the other way, doctrine would not be important. We would all have the same. Jesus should be upset with the H.S., instead of the church at Pergamum.

I completely agree with you! I hope I did not give the impression otherwise. We have the choice of "coming" to Christ and then "abiding" in Christ. If we choose to "Abide in Christ" then we WILL have the right attitude which means we WILL love as Christ loved, which means we WILL keep the law of God as Christ kept the Law of God, perfectly! The problem comes when we CHOOSE to do our own thing and stray away from Christ, basically choose our self over Christ. Then we fall into sin, it is inevitable. We cannot live righteously without Christ in us! It is impossible as Jesus makes clear in John 15. It is also very POSSIBLE to live as Christ lived, perfectly, if we live moment-by-moment "abiding in christ". Many would argue that we cannot live without sinning, but I would argue the opposite. It is possible, for Christ gave us the example of how. All we must do is follow His example of humility and "abiding" in Christ as He "abided" in the Father.

Note that all of this is still about SIN, and what defines sin. Sin is the antithesis of righteousness. Can sin or the definition thereof change? I would suppose only if the definition of righteousness could change, and this is IMPOSSIBLE for this is the definition of God's character. Does God change?

 

[Splayd]

I'm enjoying this thread. There's been some great discussion here and it really has been very respectful.

Allow me to clarify a few things. I wasn't suggesting that sacrifices etc... were intuitive (though I wouldn't discount it either). I was simply trying to play with the temrs used in the model presented by John to make the point that I don't consider the ceremonial matters to be entirely isolated to the "old law" and/or the "new law" (other terms used in the same model). I certainly understand the confusion though.

My thoughts on the matter of law are similar to those espoused by loveaboveall in his last post. If we determine that gentiles weren't under the "old law" then we must determine that nothing they did was considered sin (which we know isn't correct) OR there is another standard (law) by which their sin was recognised.

John's model tried to account for this through "moral law" - an inate understanding of right and wrong. I see some merit in that argument - inasmuch as I recognise that we do have some understanding of right and wrong independant of a written law. I don't think it adequately addresses a few things though.

For one - "sin" doesn't mean "to do wrong" as much as it means "to miss the mark". If the law of the Lord is perfect (Psalm 19:7) and righteous (Deuteronomy 4:8) and truth (Psalm 119:142) then anything else was missing the mark. If the "law of the Lord" and the "old law" (covenant) are the same thing then it was necessarily the benchmark by which everyone was judged, not just the Israelites.

It also doesn't account for the fact that Cain, Abel, Noah and co. offered sacrifices and worshipped God etc... because they weren't Israelites. There was no such thing yet. They were the fathers of everyone and whether or not they figured it out intuitively or by instruction, they did as much because it was right to do so and that is independant of one's physical heritage.

Here's what I see: one unchanging God with a consistent standard of righteousness. God doesn't give us laws just to make us jump through hoops. He gave us law because it was right. Consider whether murder is wrong just because God said it was OR whether He said it was wrong because it is. It mightn't seem like a great distinction and a reasonable argument can be made for both, but ultimately I have to recognise that if it had to be one or the other, the latter is more consistent with a loving God. Now - much (if not all) of God's standard is and/or was understood intuitively and/or taught apart from our written account of scripture. I'd suggest that the distortions of truth (ie: variations of "ceremonial law"), so evident in other cultures are testament to that and support that they understood (beit intuitive or instruction) that such matters were for them also.

I'll come back and tie my thoughts together in a little while.