Thoughts about the confusing word: "Law"

[KevinT]

I'm sure this has been covered many times, but I couldn't find a similar thread with a quick search, so will start another.

What is meant by the term "Law" in the Bible? I propose that like the word "love", it has many different meanings in the mouth of different people, and in different contexts.

Here are some of the meanings I can think of:

• The general, overall law of Moses. This involves everything given by Moses, which encompasses concepts of civil matters, religious/ceremonial matters, and also moral matters.
• The law as an upholding of a contract. I.e. God said that He would have the Jewish people as His special **IF** they obeyed His laws. So a Pharisee in the time of Jesus could point to their paying a tithe of the herbs in their garden, and assert that this (along with all their other points of obedience) was a complete fulfillment of their duty to uphold their part of the contract. All they had to do was meet the letter of the law and they felt they had done their duty.
• The law as a form of instruction. God imparts wisdom about how a successful society will operate, and it people will follow these instructions, they will naturally prosper. Before the Israelites crossed the Jordan, Moses told them how all the other nations would marvel at how wise their laws that God had given them were. Thus it would not be seen as arbitrary, but rather as something that makes sense and all could see the benefit of them.

So it seems to me that much of the conflict between those how emphasize the importance of the law (I suspect many of the posters to this section of the forums may be in this camp), and those how feel that the law is not longer in effect since Christ "nailed the law to the cross", have to do with different understandings of the word "law."

Examples of this:

• Paul was the apostle sent to the Gentiles. He was following God's direction to gather His sheep from other pastures. But many Jews felt that they needed to follow "the Law", and especially the part of the law regarding circumcision. I feel this was the "contract" interpretation of the law.
• At the counsel in Jerusalem, there was discussion of what rules the Gentiles should be recommended to follow. They set up a very limited set of recommended actions (avoid sexual immorality, the blood of strangled animals and food offered to idols), with an additional mention that all the other elements of the law Moses are continually taught. I interpret this to mean that they were considering the law in its "instruction" aspect. The limited set was a bare minimum of what they felt was needed to keep new converts out of trouble, with the idea that they could learn further concepts over time.
• Paul writes extensively against the law (I feel in its "contract" aspect), but then when a church member marries his father's wife, he rails against the man as acting in a manner that not even the heathen would do. This is a direct application of one command from the Mosaic law (Lev 20:11) against having sex with a father's wife. Most people today understand that it is also a bad practice due to societal issues even aside from religious considerations. Thus Paul is writing this in the "instruction" aspect of the law.
• Paul, after extensively dismissing the "law" and those that felt self-righteous by their rule-keeping, sets out many many rules about how a Christian should live. He essentially gives a new set of rules such that one might even consider all that the Law of Paul. He describes how husbands should treat wives, how wives should behave, how masters should treat slaves etc etc. I'm not exactly sure how to categorize this set of rules. It seems similar to my first bullet point above, as an "overall" rule. And Paul recommended that the man who fell outside it (the one having sex with his mother or step-mother) be "handed over to Satan." Sure sounds Mosaic to me.
• At the death of Jesus, the curtain that separated the Most Holy Place from the Holy Place was miraculously torn by invisible hands. I interpret this to mean that God was doing away with the sacrificial system involving the death of lambs etc, which had always pointed forward to Christ. But a change in the ceremonial aspect of the law wouldn't change the fact that we should, for example, still honor our parents.

So, in modern times, I commonly see the law discussed in these ways. I am not saying that I agree with all these, but rather that these are themes that I see:

• The law is a reflection of God's perfection. As imperfect humans, we can never match up with God's perfect mandates. Therefore Jesus stands in the gap, and the blood of His sacrifice "takes away" our sins in the same way that the sacrificial lamb was sufficient to remove the legal status of "sinfulness" from an errant Israelite. In this framework, sin is a legal debt and Jesus is able to pay off this debt with His blood.
• Or, that any attempt to go back to law keeping is backsliding away from the grace of Jesus. And example of this was when Paul chastised Peter for not eating with the gentiles for reasons related to Jewish law. And if anyone were to speak against eating unclean meat, for example, it would be seen as trying to keep the "contract" aspect of the law, rather than the "instruction" aspect of the law. Mark 7 explicitly states that Jesus declared all foods "clean". So if a piece of meat falls into a sewer, then when retrieved it would still be "clean" in the contractual sense Jesus states. But I think all will agree that it would not be clean in a sanitary or health-wise manner -- and anyone who eats it may still suffer the health consequences with throwing up and diarrhea etc.
• Others seem to make a distinction between written regulations vs Spirit-led actions. The idea here is that any regulation that is written down can be worked around in a manner that obeys the letter of the law but not the original intention. So the argument goes that a Christian will be lead by the Holy Spirit and they don't need regulations. If it seems OK, and they don't have any guidance otherwise from the Spirit, then it must be OK.

So what do I believe?

• Certain actions in life have bad outcomes. God wants to help us to avoid these pitfalls, and thus gives us instructions to avoid certain behaviors. Failure to follow wise instructions is erroneous (sinful), and consequences have to be dealt with.
• God's ways are infinitely better than our ways, and we will always have something more to learn from Him. Even after the 2nd coming of Christ and the establishment of God's new kingdom on earth, we will still be improving and learning through the life-giving instruction from the Father, the Son, and the Holy spirit.
• Something that is wrong for one person, who has been taught an advanced concept by God, may not yet be wrong for a person just starting out their journey in Christ. Just like a child is not held to the same standards as an adult, so God meets us sinful humans where we are and does His best to guide us in a good direction. And this is the problem with writing down regulations. They can be discouraging to those not yet reached a level of understanding to incorporate them into their life. And they can be restrictive to others. For example, imaging a regulation of "you must exercise 60 minutes every day." Those just starting can't tolerate this level of intensity, and others my wonder why they are limited to just 1 hr. Thus we should constantly seek God's guidance to help us, while still paying attention to what has been written. So I might try to "exercise 60 minutes", but only succeed to 5 minutes. I pray to God for mercy and keep trying, and with time He helps me succeed.
• There is a very fine line between legalism and "cheap grace" that has to be avoided.

So these are some thoughts that have been buzzing around in my head, and it helps me to try to get them down "on paper."

What do you all think? Have I missed something? Are some of my thoughts above off base?

Best wishes,

Kevin

 

[Clare73]

I'm sure this has been covered many times, but I couldn't find a similar thread with a quick search, so will start another.
What is meant by the term "Law" in the Bible? I propose that like the word "love", it has many different meanings in the mouth of different people, and in different contexts.
Here are some of the meanings I can think of:

• The general, overall law of Moses. This involves everything given by Moses, which encompasses concepts of civil matters, religious/ceremonial matters, and also moral matters.
• The law as an upholding of a contract. I.e. God said that He would have the Jewish people as His special **IF** they obeyed His laws. So a Pharisee in the time of Jesus could point to their paying a tithe of the herbs in their garden, and assert that this (along with all their other points of obedience) was a complete fulfillment of their duty to uphold their part of the contract. All they had to do was meet the letter of the law and they felt they had done their duty.
• The law as a form of instruction. God imparts wisdom about how a successful society will operate, and it people will follow these instructions, they will naturally prosper. Before the Israelites crossed the Jordan, Moses told them how all the other nations would marvel at how wise their laws that God had given them were. Thus it would not be seen as arbitrary, but rather as something that makes sense and all could see the benefit of them.

So it seems to me that much of the conflict between those how emphasize the importance of the law (I suspect many of the posters to this section of the forums may be in this camp), and those how feel that the law is not longer in effect since Christ "nailed the law to the cross", have to do with different understandings of the word "law."

Examples of this:

• Paul was the apostle sent to the Gentiles. He was following God's direction to gather His sheep from other pastures. But many Jews felt that they needed to follow "the Law", and especially the part of the law regarding circumcision. I feel this was the "contract" interpretation of the law.
• At the counsel in Jerusalem, there was discussion of what rules the Gentiles should be recommended to follow. They set up a very limited set of recommended actions (avoid sexual immorality, the blood of strangled animals and food offered to idols), with an additional mention that all the other elements of the law Moses are continually taught. I interpret this to mean that they were considering the law in its "instruction" aspect. The limited set was a bare minimum of what they felt was needed to keep new converts out of trouble, with the idea that they could learn further concepts over time.
• Paul writes extensively against the law (I feel in its "contract" aspect), but then when a church member marries his father's wife, he rails against the man as acting in a manner that not even the heathen would do. This is a direct application of one command from the Mosaic law (Lev 20:11) against having sex with a father's wife. Most people today understand that it is also a bad practice due to societal issues even aside from religious considerations. Thus Paul is writing this in the "instruction" aspect of the law.
• Paul, after extensively dismissing the "law" and those that felt self-righteous by their rule-keeping, sets out many many rules about how a Christian should live. He essentially gives a new set of rules such that one might even consider all that the Law of Paul. He describes how husbands should treat wives, how wives should behave, how masters should treat slaves etc etc. I'm not exactly sure how to categorize this set of rules. It seems similar to my first bullet point above, as an "overall" rule. And Paul recommended that the man who fell outside it (the one having sex with his mother or step-mother) be "handed over to Satan." Sure sounds Mosaic to me.
• At the death of Jesus, the curtain that separated the Most Holy Place from the Holy Place was miraculously torn by invisible hands. I interpret this to mean that God was doing away with the sacrificial system involving the death of lambs etc, which had always pointed forward to Christ. But a change in the ceremonial aspect of the law wouldn't change the fact that we should, for example, still honor our parents.

So, in modern times, I commonly see the law discussed in these ways. I am not saying that I agree with all these, but rather that these are themes that I see:

• The law is a reflection of God's perfection. As imperfect humans, we can never match up with God's perfect mandates. Therefore Jesus stands in the gap, and the blood of His sacrifice "takes away" our sins in the same way that the sacrificial lamb was sufficient to remove the legal status of "sinfulness" from an errant Israelite. In this framework, sin is a legal debt and Jesus is able to pay off this debt with His blood.
• Or, that any attempt to go back to law keeping is backsliding away from the grace of Jesus. And example of this was when Paul chastised Peter for not eating with the gentiles for reasons related to Jewish law. And if anyone were to speak against eating unclean meat, for example, it would be seen as trying to keep the "contract" aspect of the law, rather than the "instruction" aspect of the law. Mark 7 explicitly states that Jesus declared all foods "clean". So if a piece of meat falls into a sewer, then when retrieved it would still be "clean" in the contractual sense Jesus states. But I think all will agree that it would not be clean in a sanitary or health-wise manner -- and anyone who eats it may still suffer the health consequences with throwing up and diarrhea etc.
• Others seem to make a distinction between written regulations vs Spirit-led actions. The idea here is that any regulation that is written down can be worked around in a manner that obeys the letter of the law but not the original intention. So the argument goes that a Christian will be lead by the Holy Spirit and they don't need regulations. If it seems OK, and they don't have any guidance otherwise from the Spirit, then it must be OK.

So what do I believe?

• Certain actions in life have bad outcomes. God wants to help us to avoid these pitfalls, and thus gives us instructions to avoid certain behaviors. Failure to follow wise instructions is erroneous (sinful), and consequences have to be dealt with.
• God's ways are infinitely better than our ways, and we will always have something more to learn from Him. Even after the 2nd coming of Christ and the establishment of God's new kingdom on earth, we will still be improving and learning through the life-giving instruction from the Father, the Son, and the Holy spirit.
• Something that is wrong for one person, who has been taught an advanced concept by God, may not yet be wrong for a person just starting out their journey in Christ. Just like a child is not held to the same standards as an adult, so God meets us sinful humans where we are and does His best to guide us in a good direction. And this is the problem with writing down regulations. They can be discouraging to those not yet reached a level of understanding to incorporate them into their life. And they can be restrictive to others. For example, imaging a regulation of "you must exercise 60 minutes every day." Those just starting can't tolerate this level of intensity, and others my wonder why they are limited to just 1 hr. Thus we should constantly seek God's guidance to help us, while still paying attention to what has been written. So I might try to "exercise 60 minutes", but only succeed to 5 minutes. I pray to God for mercy and keep trying, and with time He helps me succeed.
• There is a very fine line between legalism and "cheap grace" that has to be avoided.

So these are some thoughts that have been buzzing around in my head, and it helps me to try to get them down "on paper."

What do you all think? Have I missed something? Are some of my thoughts above off base?

Best wishes,

Kevin

The word "law" incorporates all God's regulations in the OT.

In the NT, they are all fulfilled in loving others and God (Ro 13:8, Mt 22:37-40).

 

[KevinT]

The word "law" incorporates all God's regulations in the OT.

In the NT, they are all fulfilled in loving others and God (Ro 13:8, Mt 22:37-40).

What do you mean by the word "fulfilled"? Do you mean that it is sufficient replacement?

If so, that I have to disagree. E.g. when God said that it was not a good idea to eat bats (which is where it it theorized Covid-19 came from), then does loving God and loving my fellow man "fulfill" this? It seems that you are describing the "contractual" requirements of the law, which might be changed for "fulfilled." But I don't see how the "instructional" elements of the law can be "fulfilled."

Gal 5:13
13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Rom 8:13
8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,”[a] and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Paul, in the texts above, is pointing out that some of the core 10 commandments (the 2nd half) can be summarized by "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18). But he is skipping over the first part of the commandments which speak to love and respect to God.

Mark 12:
28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” 29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[b] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[c] There is no commandment greater than these.”

So Paul, when writing that love "fulfills" the law, he means that it is a more fundamental law. If you love your neighbor, then you won't steal or covet. But it is NOT a fulfillment such as a REPLACEMENT. I can't say that I'm loving my neighbor, so therefore I don't need to stop my stealing. And it is not a fulfillment such as a completion. One might say, "Last week I promised to give you $5, and today I fulfilled my promise." But it would not be proper to say "I love my neighbor, so therefore the law to not murder is fulfilled (completed)."

Am I misunderstanding you?

Best wishes,

KT

 

[Clare73]

What do you mean by the word "fulfilled"? Do you mean that it is sufficient replacement?

I mean the teaching of Christ (Gal 1:11-12) given to us by Paul in Ro 13:8-10.

"Fulfilled" means that loving your neighbor counts for/is equal to obeying all the law.

That's not me talking, that is the apostle giving the teaching he received from Jesus Christ personally (Gal 1:11-12).

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I'm sure this has been covered many times, but I couldn't find a similar thread with a quick search, so will start another.

What is meant by the term "Law" in the Bible? I propose that like the word "love", it has many different meanings in the mouth of different people, and in different contexts.

Here are some of the meanings I can think of:

• The general, overall law of Moses. This involves everything given by Moses, which encompasses concepts of civil matters, religious/ceremonial matters, and also moral matters.
• The law as an upholding of a contract. I.e. God said that He would have the Jewish people as His special **IF** they obeyed His laws. So a Pharisee in the time of Jesus could point to their paying a tithe of the herbs in their garden, and assert that this (along with all their other points of obedience) was a complete fulfillment of their duty to uphold their part of the contract. All they had to do was meet the letter of the law and they felt they had done their duty.
• The law as a form of instruction. God imparts wisdom about how a successful society will operate, and it people will follow these instructions, they will naturally prosper. Before the Israelites crossed the Jordan, Moses told them how all the other nations would marvel at how wise their laws that God had given them were. Thus it would not be seen as arbitrary, but rather as something that makes sense and all could see the benefit of them.

So it seems to me that much of the conflict between those how emphasize the importance of the law (I suspect many of the posters to this section of the forums may be in this camp), and those how feel that the law is not longer in effect since Christ "nailed the law to the cross", have to do with different understandings of the word "law."

Examples of this:

• Paul was the apostle sent to the Gentiles. He was following God's direction to gather His sheep from other pastures. But many Jews felt that they needed to follow "the Law", and especially the part of the law regarding circumcision. I feel this was the "contract" interpretation of the law.
• At the counsel in Jerusalem, there was discussion of what rules the Gentiles should be recommended to follow. They set up a very limited set of recommended actions (avoid sexual immorality, the blood of strangled animals and food offered to idols), with an additional mention that all the other elements of the law Moses are continually taught. I interpret this to mean that they were considering the law in its "instruction" aspect. The limited set was a bare minimum of what they felt was needed to keep new converts out of trouble, with the idea that they could learn further concepts over time.
• Paul writes extensively against the law (I feel in its "contract" aspect), but then when a church member marries his father's wife, he rails against the man as acting in a manner that not even the heathen would do. This is a direct application of one command from the Mosaic law (Lev 20:11) against having sex with a father's wife. Most people today understand that it is also a bad practice due to societal issues even aside from religious considerations. Thus Paul is writing this in the "instruction" aspect of the law.
• Paul, after extensively dismissing the "law" and those that felt self-righteous by their rule-keeping, sets out many many rules about how a Christian should live. He essentially gives a new set of rules such that one might even consider all that the Law of Paul. He describes how husbands should treat wives, how wives should behave, how masters should treat slaves etc etc. I'm not exactly sure how to categorize this set of rules. It seems similar to my first bullet point above, as an "overall" rule. And Paul recommended that the man who fell outside it (the one having sex with his mother or step-mother) be "handed over to Satan." Sure sounds Mosaic to me.
• At the death of Jesus, the curtain that separated the Most Holy Place from the Holy Place was miraculously torn by invisible hands. I interpret this to mean that God was doing away with the sacrificial system involving the death of lambs etc, which had always pointed forward to Christ. But a change in the ceremonial aspect of the law wouldn't change the fact that we should, for example, still honor our parents.

So, in modern times, I commonly see the law discussed in these ways. I am not saying that I agree with all these, but rather that these are themes that I see:

• The law is a reflection of God's perfection. As imperfect humans, we can never match up with God's perfect mandates. Therefore Jesus stands in the gap, and the blood of His sacrifice "takes away" our sins in the same way that the sacrificial lamb was sufficient to remove the legal status of "sinfulness" from an errant Israelite. In this framework, sin is a legal debt and Jesus is able to pay off this debt with His blood.
• Or, that any attempt to go back to law keeping is backsliding away from the grace of Jesus. And example of this was when Paul chastised Peter for not eating with the gentiles for reasons related to Jewish law. And if anyone were to speak against eating unclean meat, for example, it would be seen as trying to keep the "contract" aspect of the law, rather than the "instruction" aspect of the law. Mark 7 explicitly states that Jesus declared all foods "clean". So if a piece of meat falls into a sewer, then when retrieved it would still be "clean" in the contractual sense Jesus states. But I think all will agree that it would not be clean in a sanitary or health-wise manner -- and anyone who eats it may still suffer the health consequences with throwing up and diarrhea etc.
• Others seem to make a distinction between written regulations vs Spirit-led actions. The idea here is that any regulation that is written down can be worked around in a manner that obeys the letter of the law but not the original intention. So the argument goes that a Christian will be lead by the Holy Spirit and they don't need regulations. If it seems OK, and they don't have any guidance otherwise from the Spirit, then it must be OK.

So what do I believe?

• Certain actions in life have bad outcomes. God wants to help us to avoid these pitfalls, and thus gives us instructions to avoid certain behaviors. Failure to follow wise instructions is erroneous (sinful), and consequences have to be dealt with.
• God's ways are infinitely better than our ways, and we will always have something more to learn from Him. Even after the 2nd coming of Christ and the establishment of God's new kingdom on earth, we will still be improving and learning through the life-giving instruction from the Father, the Son, and the Holy spirit.
• Something that is wrong for one person, who has been taught an advanced concept by God, may not yet be wrong for a person just starting out their journey in Christ. Just like a child is not held to the same standards as an adult, so God meets us sinful humans where we are and does His best to guide us in a good direction. And this is the problem with writing down regulations. They can be discouraging to those not yet reached a level of understanding to incorporate them into their life. And they can be restrictive to others. For example, imaging a regulation of "you must exercise 60 minutes every day." Those just starting can't tolerate this level of intensity, and others my wonder why they are limited to just 1 hr. Thus we should constantly seek God's guidance to help us, while still paying attention to what has been written. So I might try to "exercise 60 minutes", but only succeed to 5 minutes. I pray to God for mercy and keep trying, and with time He helps me succeed.
• There is a very fine line between legalism and "cheap grace" that has to be avoided.

So these are some thoughts that have been buzzing around in my head, and it helps me to try to get them down "on paper."

What do you all think? Have I missed something? Are some of my thoughts above off base?

Best wishes,

Kevin

Hi there.

This is my understanding, "law" is a generic term and there is not one size fits all Neh 9:13. There are many different laws that serve different purposes. For example the law that defines what sin is Romans 7:7 Mat 5:19-30 can’t be the same law that was added because of sin. Gal 3:19 There is a law that is perfect Psa 19:7 and a law that is contrary Deut 31:26. Understanding these different laws will help us understand the NT because many times only “law” is mentioned but if we allow the context of the scripture to speak for Itself and understand the law that is holy, blessed and righteous Rom 7:12 Psa 119:172 can never be the law that is contrary or against. Col 2:14 Eph 2:15 this will help us to better understand what God is trying to teach us . God has an eternal law that Jesus taught and kept. If we follow the teachings of Jesus Mat 5:19-30 Mat 15:3-14 Mark 7:7-13 Mat 19:17-29 Mark 2:27 and the example He left for us 1 John 2:6 John 15:10 Luke 4:16 He will only lead us on the narrow path back to Him Rev 22:14

 

[SabbathBlessings]

PS. While I agree love fulfills the law, i.e. if we love our neighbor we won’t steal from them, if we love God, we won’t worship other gods etc. Love does not go undefined in scripture. 1 John 5:2-3. John 14:15 Exo 20:6 Rom 13:9 Love can be subjective if we use our definition of love and not God’s. Many teach all we have to do is love but we can live how we want, which is depending on our own righteousness and not God’s Psa 119:172 Psa 119:142 our truth, not God’s Psa 119:151. We are only sanctified by the Truth of God’s Word John 17:17 and only God can sanctify us Eze 20:12 so when God defines love to Him 1 John 5:3 John 14:15 Exp 20:6 John 15:10 and love to our neighbor Rom 13:9 1 John 5:2 we should not try to re-define based on how we choose to love. We could be forgetting something God wants us to remember

 

[BobRyan]

So it seems to me that much of the conflict between those how emphasize the importance of the law (I suspect many of the posters to this section of the forums may be in this camp), and those how feel that the law is not longer in effect since Christ "nailed the law to the cross", have to do with different understandings of the word "law."

Examples of this:

• Paul was the apostle sent to the Gentiles. He was following God's direction to gather His sheep from other pastures. But many Jews felt that they needed to follow "the Law", and especially the part of the law regarding circumcision. I feel this was the "contract" interpretation of the law.

Interesting topic - so just one point of clarification. The issue above is not between Paul and non-Christian Jews -- it is purely between Paul and Christian Jews as we see in Acts 15. It is the Christian Jews that were concerned about gentile Christians being circumcised. Non-Christian Jews did not care about that since for them the gentiles in their synagogues were second-class citizens, welcome to attend and contribute but always viewed as "lessers".

• At the counsel in Jerusalem, there was discussion of what rules the Gentiles should be recommended to follow.

Gentiles are not required to be circumcised to be saved under the Old Testament. Rather this is a NT Christ-Jew idea about gentiles No such OT law existed.

• They set up a very limited set of recommended actions (avoid sexual immorality, the blood of strangled animals

Avoiding meat with blood in it came from the law in Lev 17.

• and food offered to idols), with an additional mention that all the other elements of the law Moses are continually taught.

Indeed - since "Moses is preached every Sabbath in the synagogues" where the gentiles were already attending, as was pointed out in Acts 15.

• I interpret this to mean that they were considering the law in its "instruction" aspect. The limited set was a bare minimum of what they felt was needed to keep new converts out of trouble

Not quite. It was not even disputed that the gentiles must not "take God's name in vain" , "must not murder" and must Honor parents.
None of that is listed in Acts 15 but all of it is demanded of gentile Christians all through scripture.

• Paul writes extensively against the law (I feel in its "contract" aspect), but then when a church member marries his father's wife, he rails against the man as acting in a manner that not even the heathen would do. This is a direct application of one command from the Mosaic law (Lev 20:11) against having sex with a father's wife.

Indeed. Paul never sanctioned any violation of the TEN commandments and opposed all aspects of law-breaking when it came to the moral law of God.

That is affirmed by D.L. Moody, C. H. Spurgeon, R.C. Sproul, the Baptist Confession of Faith sectn 19, the Westminster Confession of Faith sectn 19 etc.

• Paul, after extensively dismissing the "law"

Paul never dismisses it ,, in fact he says "it is not the hearers of the LAW that are just before God - but the DOERS of the LAW will be justified" Rom 2:13.

But he strongly opposed the idea that the Law could function as a replacement for Christ, for the gospel etc.
For Paul the Law is written on the heart under the NEW Covenant Heb 8:6-13 and he even says "What then - do we make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law" Rom 3:31

• and those that felt self-righteous by their rule-keeping, sets out many many rules about how a Christian should live. He essentially gives a new set of rules such that one might even consider all that the Law of Paul.

Not so as we see in Eph 6:1-2.

In Eph 6:1 Paul simply commands "children obey your parents in the Lord, for this is RIGHT"

So there you have Paul commanding - and saying "do this because it is the right thing to do" --according to me - an Apostle, the Apostle Paul.
But then in Eph 6:2 he appeals the TEN "honor your father and mother which is the FIRST COMMANDMENT with a promise"... Now his argument switches to the authority of the TEN - as spoken by Christ at Sinai. IT is only the unit of TEN that has "Honor your father and mother" as the first commandment WITH a promise.

• He describes how husbands should treat wives, how wives should behave, how masters should treat slaves etc etc. I'm not exactly sure how to categorize this set of rules.

In Matt 5 Christ does something similar.

IN Rom 13 Paul says all that sort of law is contained in the command "Love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18

• At the death of Jesus, the curtain that separated the Most Holy Place from the Holy Place was miraculously torn by invisible hands. I interpret this to mean that God was doing away with the sacrificial system involving the death of lambs etc,

True - but rather than inferring it - you can see it explicitly stated in Heb 10:4-12

Heb 10:
4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,

“You have not desired sacrifice and offering,
But You have prepared a body for Me;
6 You have not taken pleasure in whole burnt offerings and offerings for sin.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come
(It is written of Me in the scroll of the book)
To do Your will, O God.’”

8 After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and offerings for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10 By this will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time.

11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God,

So what do I believe?

• Certain actions in life have bad outcomes. God wants to help us to avoid these pitfalls, and thus gives us instructions to avoid certain behaviors. Failure to follow wise instructions is erroneous (sinful), and consequences have to be dealt with.
• God's ways are infinitely better than our ways, and we will always have something more to learn from Him. Even after the 2nd coming of Christ and the establishment of God's new kingdom on earth, we will still be improving and learning through the life-giving instruction from the Father, the Son, and the Holy spirit.
• Something that is wrong for one person, who has been taught an advanced concept by God, may not yet be wrong for a person just starting out their journey in Christ. Just like a child is not held to the same standards as an adult, so God meets us sinful humans where we are and does His best to guide us in a good direction.

agreed.

• And this is the problem with writing down regulations. They can be discouraging to those not yet reached a level of understanding to incorporate them into their life. And they can be restrictive to others.

If God knew about a problem with writing down His commands -- He never mentioned it.
James 4:17 "to him that KNOWS to do right and does it not - to him it is sin". The text does not say "if you do not know to do right then the problem is with the Law of God"

• For example, imaging a regulation of "you must exercise 60 minutes every day." Those just starting can't tolerate this level of intensity, and others my wonder why they are limited to just 1 hr. Thus we should constantly seek God's guidance to help us, while still paying attention to what has been written. So I might try to "exercise 60 minutes", but only succeed to 5 minutes. I pray to God for mercy and keep trying, and with time He helps me succeed.

True. But that is like saying "do not take God's name in vain sure is a good idea - but I am so accustomed to violating that command that it is hard to stop doing it completely. I will simply get better and better over time at obeying it".

The problem is not that God wrote down "do not take God's name in vain".

• There is a very fine line between legalism and "cheap grace" that has to be avoided.

Not sure it is "a fine line" between them.

Rather we need to avoid the two ditches - one of legalism (attempting obedience apart from the new birth and claiming the promises of God) -- vs the ditch of "Cheap grace" where ignoring the word of God "as per your whim/preferences" becomes the new Bible.

 

[KevinT]

I mean the teaching of Christ (Gal 1:11-12) given to us by Paul in Ro 13:8-10.

"Fulfilled" means that loving your neighbor counts for/is equal to obeying all the law.

That's not me talking, that is the apostle giving the teaching he received from Jesus Christ personally (Gal 1:11-12).

I hear what you are saying, and I agree that what you write seems in line with what Paul writes. But it also seems out of alignment with the rest of the Bible, so I have to wonder if there is some missing context. Paul's mission was to lower the barrier of entry into God's kingdom to the Gentiles, but to ultimately graft the new members into God's true olive tree (Rom 11). So I don't think it should be the goal of a Gentile to remain a Gentile (using Gentile in it's "heathen" sense, not a "non-Jewish" sense). Rev 11 says “Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, with its worshipers. But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months." I'm not completely certain what this passage means, but it doesn't seem that being numbered with the Gentiles is a good thing, because it sounds like they are being excluded.

But let me take a different approach. Imagine I am a junior pastor, and you (the reader) are a senior pastor. A young member of the church has gotten in trouble with the police for use of crack cocaine, and we are meeting with him to try to save him from self destruction. He is alone in the world, with no living parents or siblings, so his actions are only harming himself. I'll call him "Bill".

"You are not following God's guidance for a good life," I tell Bill. "1 Cor 6 says '19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.' So you must follow this command from God or you are going to end up in big trouble, both in this life and at the time of God's judgement!"

"Ah," says Bill, "There you go with that legalism. I'm not hurting anyone, and I'm just having a little fun. I'm a good person and I help my neighbors all the time. Just yesterday I mowed the elderly widow's lawn in my neighborhood. My love for my neighbors has fulfilled my obedience to any law of God."

How do you, as the senior pastor, respond?

 

[KevinT]

Interesting topic - so just one point of clarification. ...

I agree with 90% of what you wrote and it seems you agree with about 80% of what I wrote. I don't think there would be any value to me going back and trying to defend the points you disagree with.

I'll just say that you seem to be showing all the ways that Paul upholds the law. And on the other hand, I very frequently find people who point out all the ways that Paul writes about doing away with the law. See post from @Clare73. This is what drives me crazy about Paul. I feel like I am back in college with a professor that won't give consistent guidance about what will be on the test. One day he says this, and another day he says that. 2 Cor 12 "6 Let it be granted, then, that I was not a burden to you; but, crafty fellow that I am, I took you with trickery! " I think Paul purposely works to shake his audience out of their complacency with this back and forth, saying things to shock them into consideration of the important issues he is trying to teach.

Thanks for your thoughtful response to my post. I appreciate it.

Best wishes,

Kevin

 

[KevinT]

PS. While I agree love fulfills the law, i.e. if we love our neighbor we won’t steal from them, if we love God, we won’t worship other gods etc. Love does not go undefined in scripture. 1 John 5:2-3. John 14:15 Exo 20:6 Rom 13:9 Love can be subjective if we use our definition of love and not God’s. Many teach all we have to do is love but we can live how we want, which is depending on our own righteousness and not God’s Psa 119:172 Psa 119:142 our truth, not God’s Psa 119:151. We are only sanctified by the Truth of God’s Word John 17:17 and only God can sanctify us Eze 20:12

I agree with what you have written. Thanks for responding.

KT

 

[BobRyan]

, I very frequently find people who point out all the ways that Paul writes about doing away with the law. See post from @Clare73. This is what drives me crazy about Paul. I feel like I am back in college with a professor that won't give consistent guidance about what will be on the test. One day he says this, and another day he says that. 2 Cor 12 "6 Let it be granted, then, that I was not a burden to you; but, crafty fellow that I am, I took you with trickery! " I think Paul purposely works to shake his audience out of their complacency with this back and forth, saying things to shock them into consideration of the important issues he is trying to teach.

true.

I agree with you that some people post against the Law of God in almost every thread where the Law of God is in the topic. The new Covenant of Heb 8:6-12 says the Law of God is written on the heart - but some will add "yeah but not God's Ten Commandments" or not this or that part of the moral law of God, as fits a given preference.

 

[Clare73]

I hear what you are saying, and I agree that what you write seems in line with what Paul writes. But it also seems out of alignment with the rest of the Bible, so I have to wonder if there is some missing context. Paul's mission was to lower the barrier of entry into God's kingdom

You have mistaken Jesus for Paul. . .it was Jesus, not Paul, who was "himself their peace" in breaking (destroying) the barrier (Eph 2:14) of the cleanliness laws which separated the Jews from the Gentiles.

to the Gentiles, but to ultimately graft the new members into God's true olive tree (Rom 11).

Paul did not graft anyone into the one olive tree of the church (Ro 11:7, 23), that is done only by the Holy Spirit through faith in Jesus Christ (Eph 2:8-9).

So I don't think it should be the goal of a Gentile to remain a Gentile (using Gentile in it's "heathen" sense, not a "non-Jewish" sense). Rev 11 says “Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, with its worshipers. But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months." I'm not completely certain what this passage means, but it doesn't seem that being numbered with the Gentiles is a good thing, because it sounds like they are being excluded.
But let me take a different approach. Imagine I am a junior pastor, and you (the reader) are a senior pastor. A young member of the church has gotten in trouble with the police for use of crack cocaine, and we are meeting with him to try to save him from self destruction. He is alone in the world, with no living parents or siblings, so his actions are only harming himself. I'll call him "Bill".
"You are not following God's guidance for a good life," I tell Bill. "1 Cor 6 says '19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?

You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.'
So you must follow this command from God or you are going to end up in big trouble, both in this life and at the time of God's judgement!"
"Ah," says Bill, "There you go with that legalism. I'm not hurting anyone, and I'm just having a little fun. I'm a good person and I help my neighbors all the time. Just yesterday I mowed the elderly widow's lawn in my neighborhood. My love for my neighbors has fulfilled my obedience to any law of God."
How do you, as the senior pastor, respond?

I begin with his missing the point that it is about himself, it is not about others.

 

[sparow]

I'm sure this has been covered many times, but I couldn't find a similar thread with a quick search, so will start another.

What is meant by the term "Law" in the Bible? I propose that like the word "love", it has many different meanings in the mouth of different people, and in different contexts.

Here are some of the meanings I can think of:

• The general, overall law of Moses. This involves everything given by Moses, which encompasses concepts of civil matters, religious/ceremonial matters, and also moral matters.
• The law as an upholding of a contract. I.e. God said that He would have the Jewish people as His special **IF** they obeyed His laws. So a Pharisee in the time of Jesus could point to their paying a tithe of the herbs in their garden, and assert that this (along with all their other points of obedience) was a complete fulfillment of their duty to uphold their part of the contract. All they had to do was meet the letter of the law and they felt they had done their duty.
• The law as a form of instruction. God imparts wisdom about how a successful society will operate, and it people will follow these instructions, they will naturally prosper. Before the Israelites crossed the Jordan, Moses told them how all the other nations would marvel at how wise their laws that God had given them were. Thus it would not be seen as arbitrary, but rather as something that makes sense and all could see the benefit of them.

So it seems to me that much of the conflict between those how emphasize the importance of the law (I suspect many of the posters to this section of the forums may be in this camp), and those how feel that the law is not longer in effect since Christ "nailed the law to the cross", have to do with different understandings of the word "law."

Examples of this:

• Paul was the apostle sent to the Gentiles. He was following God's direction to gather His sheep from other pastures. But many Jews felt that they needed to follow "the Law", and especially the part of the law regarding circumcision. I feel this was the "contract" interpretation of the law.
• At the counsel in Jerusalem, there was discussion of what rules the Gentiles should be recommended to follow. They set up a very limited set of recommended actions (avoid sexual immorality, the blood of strangled animals and food offered to idols), with an additional mention that all the other elements of the law Moses are continually taught. I interpret this to mean that they were considering the law in its "instruction" aspect. The limited set was a bare minimum of what they felt was needed to keep new converts out of trouble, with the idea that they could learn further concepts over time.
• Paul writes extensively against the law (I feel in its "contract" aspect), but then when a church member marries his father's wife, he rails against the man as acting in a manner that not even the heathen would do. This is a direct application of one command from the Mosaic law (Lev 20:11) against having sex with a father's wife. Most people today understand that it is also a bad practice due to societal issues even aside from religious considerations. Thus Paul is writing this in the "instruction" aspect of the law.
• Paul, after extensively dismissing the "law" and those that felt self-righteous by their rule-keeping, sets out many many rules about how a Christian should live. He essentially gives a new set of rules such that one might even consider all that the Law of Paul. He describes how husbands should treat wives, how wives should behave, how masters should treat slaves etc etc. I'm not exactly sure how to categorize this set of rules. It seems similar to my first bullet point above, as an "overall" rule. And Paul recommended that the man who fell outside it (the one having sex with his mother or step-mother) be "handed over to Satan." Sure sounds Mosaic to me.
• At the death of Jesus, the curtain that separated the Most Holy Place from the Holy Place was miraculously torn by invisible hands. I interpret this to mean that God was doing away with the sacrificial system involving the death of lambs etc, which had always pointed forward to Christ. But a change in the ceremonial aspect of the law wouldn't change the fact that we should, for example, still honor our parents.

So, in modern times, I commonly see the law discussed in these ways. I am not saying that I agree with all these, but rather that these are themes that I see:

• The law is a reflection of God's perfection. As imperfect humans, we can never match up with God's perfect mandates. Therefore Jesus stands in the gap, and the blood of His sacrifice "takes away" our sins in the same way that the sacrificial lamb was sufficient to remove the legal status of "sinfulness" from an errant Israelite. In this framework, sin is a legal debt and Jesus is able to pay off this debt with His blood.
• Or, that any attempt to go back to law keeping is backsliding away from the grace of Jesus. And example of this was when Paul chastised Peter for not eating with the gentiles for reasons related to Jewish law. And if anyone were to speak against eating unclean meat, for example, it would be seen as trying to keep the "contract" aspect of the law, rather than the "instruction" aspect of the law. Mark 7 explicitly states that Jesus declared all foods "clean". So if a piece of meat falls into a sewer, then when retrieved it would still be "clean" in the contractual sense Jesus states. But I think all will agree that it would not be clean in a sanitary or health-wise manner -- and anyone who eats it may still suffer the health consequences with throwing up and diarrhea etc.
• Others seem to make a distinction between written regulations vs Spirit-led actions. The idea here is that any regulation that is written down can be worked around in a manner that obeys the letter of the law but not the original intention. So the argument goes that a Christian will be lead by the Holy Spirit and they don't need regulations. If it seems OK, and they don't have any guidance otherwise from the Spirit, then it must be OK.

So what do I believe?

• Certain actions in life have bad outcomes. God wants to help us to avoid these pitfalls, and thus gives us instructions to avoid certain behaviors. Failure to follow wise instructions is erroneous (sinful), and consequences have to be dealt with.
• God's ways are infinitely better than our ways, and we will always have something more to learn from Him. Even after the 2nd coming of Christ and the establishment of God's new kingdom on earth, we will still be improving and learning through the life-giving instruction from the Father, the Son, and the Holy spirit.
• Something that is wrong for one person, who has been taught an advanced concept by God, may not yet be wrong for a person just starting out their journey in Christ. Just like a child is not held to the same standards as an adult, so God meets us sinful humans where we are and does His best to guide us in a good direction. And this is the problem with writing down regulations. They can be discouraging to those not yet reached a level of understanding to incorporate them into their life. And they can be restrictive to others. For example, imaging a regulation of "you must exercise 60 minutes every day." Those just starting can't tolerate this level of intensity, and others my wonder why they are limited to just 1 hr. Thus we should constantly seek God's guidance to help us, while still paying attention to what has been written. So I might try to "exercise 60 minutes", but only succeed to 5 minutes. I pray to God for mercy and keep trying, and with time He helps me succeed.
• There is a very fine line between legalism and "cheap grace" that has to be avoided.

So these are some thoughts that have been buzzing around in my head, and it helps me to try to get them down "on paper."

What do you all think? Have I missed something? Are some of my thoughts above off base?

Best wishes,

Kevin

It seems to me that most people put the scriptures through a mincer and then incorrectly reconstructs them. One question might be: Is the Law of Moses greater (in volume) than what God gave Moses, or is "Law of Moses" a misnomer.

 

[sparow]

true.

I agree with you that some people post against the Law of God in almost every thread where the Law of God is in the topic. The new Covenant of Heb 8:6-12 says the Law of God is written on the heart - but some will add "yeah but not God's Ten Commandments" or not this or that part of the moral law of God, as fits a given preference.

Hebrews 8:7, Who is this upstart Paul, who declares God's first covenant faulty. My understanding is that the old covenant is made up of a number of covenants, if we count the first four books. What people are calling the new covenant is the finishing off of the old covenant, at the same time as being a second chance for the lost sheep of Israel. Having the Law written by God on our hearts happens on the last day when WE are raised up perfect.

 

[KevinT]

It seems to me that most people put the scriptures through a mincer and then incorrectly reconstructs them. One question might be: Is the Law of Moses greater (in volume) than what God gave Moses, or is "Law of Moses" a misnomer.

God put Moses in a position of authority. And rather than micro-managing His chosen leader, I suspect Moses used his God-given understanding of a best course of action, and gave commands. In an organization, like Microsoft for example, some manager in the organization might be the one that chooses the default wallpaper. An outsider would say that "Microsoft" made that choice. Likewise, Moses may well have made instructions, and we say that "God" did it. Maybe?

KT

 

[KevinT]

Having the Law written by God on our hearts happens on the last day when WE are raised up perfect.

I would like to look at this idea more carefully....

If God can simply "snap His fingers", and change us from rebellious enemies of God into people with God's law "written on our hearts", meaning we have no sin or inclination to sin, then why does He not do this for everyone? If there is nothing to be done on the human's part, then it comes down to arbitrary decision on God's part.

My contention is that humans have a free choice, and we are to ask Him to change us. Many believe that justification is the work of a moment (forgiveness), whereas sanctification is the work of a lifetime, whereby as we keep our attention on God, He teaches us how to live.

Maybe this is just a difference in semantics.

Kevin

 

[sparow]

God put Moses in a position of authority. And rather than micro-managing His chosen leader, I suspect Moses used his God-given understanding of a best course of action, and gave commands. In an organization, like Microsoft for example, some manager in the organization might be the one that chooses the default wallpaper. An outsider would say that "Microsoft" made that choice. Likewise, Moses may well have made instructions, and we say that "God" did it. Maybe?

KT

The point that attempted to make was why call it the Law of Moses when it is the Law of God established forever. It is not simply the words, but what the words mean, or more so, what the speaker of the words means. Does the law of Moses mean the Law of God administered by Moses or that Moses is in place of God; it is my understanding that the Judges under Moses judged with the presumption that it was God doing the judging.

 

[sparow]

I would like to look at this idea more carefully....

If God can simply "snap His fingers", and change us from rebellious enemies of God into people with God's law "written on our hearts", meaning we have no sin or inclination to sin, then why does He not do this for everyone? If there is nothing to be done on the human's part, then it comes down to arbitrary decision on God's part.

My contention is that humans have a free choice, and we are to ask Him to change us. Many believe that justification is the work of a moment (forgiveness), whereas sanctification is the work of a lifetime, whereby as we keep our attention on God, He teaches us how to live.

Maybe this is just a difference in semantics.

Kevin

There seems to be an assumption that God can do anything, I believe this needs qualification. God cannot lie, I would say God cannot do things that are irrational, and that God is bound by the same laws of his creation and his covenant, including time. God has undertaken to do a job the time frame of which extends into the eighth millennium, and this is the beginning of an eternity.

I don't think the difference is semantics, the difference, I believe is between the covenant of God and the covenant of men (new covenant). Whether we say new covenant of simply covenant, that is semantics, and what we mean involves the truth and the lie.

Justification and sanctification are to do with the science of God and are outside of my pay grade.