"All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." - 1 Timothy 3:16-17
It's been estimated that it was roughly around 63 A.D. when Paul wrote this instruction to Timothy. The New Testament wasn't canonized until about 367 A.D., which of course would have been well after Paul's death. So it must be concluded, logically, that Paul was not referring to the "New Testament" but the "Old" or the entire scriptures of the Law (Torah) and the Prophets (Neviim and Treisar). Any other conclusion simply wouldn't make sense. Either that or we would have to conclude that until the letters of the Apostles were canonized, man was left in limbo by God for 300 years without any standards of right and wrong.
Based on this fact alone, it would be difficult to conclude that Paul was advocating the abolition of the "Law and the Prophets." If he was, why would Paul state that "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God..."? It seems most obvious that Paul was indeed stating that what God had written, by and through the inspiration of men, was good "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
No amount of insistence then that "we are not under the law but under grace" could possibly hold up against this statement by Paul. Murder was just as wrong after the cross as before. Now, this is certainly not meant to suggest that we aren't under grace, because we most certainly are. Jesus Christ came specifically to cover our sin with His blood. More importantly Jesus Christ did not come to Earth to give anyone license to sin.Therefore, it has to be concluded that the standard for sin, the law, is still in place. In the days of the Israelites whenever anyone sinned against the law they had to sacrifice something, by faith, to absolve themselves of that sin (Leviticus 4 and 5). Of course, that sacrifice always pointed forward, in some way, to the coming Messiah that God Himself would have to sacrifice for sin.The difference is that Jesus Christ came to be that sin offering for the sin of the people (John 1:29, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Daniel 9:27). No longer are sinners required to sacrifice bulls, goats and turtledove's for their sins. Since Jesus died on the cross, whenever anyone sins, they now have direct access to the Holy of Hollies, and the very High Priest that sprinkles His own blood and covers that sin with His own blood!
Does that abolish the law? Hardly. What it should do, for everyone, is give each and everyone of us an awesome appreciation for the lengths that God and His Son were willing to go to show us the effects of sin, and just how God the Father intends to have us reconciled to Him! What an awesome promise and display of perfect Love.
Today Christians, or for that matter anyone, who insist that no one is under the law but rather under grace have become a law unto themselves simply by rejecting the very law, and very words of God the Father. If, as David tells us in Psalms 19, the law is perfect then it can not be changed. Something that is made perfect that needs to be changed wasn't perfect after all. There can be no greater example of this than the debate about homosexuality and homosexual marriage that currently rages today.
In the Ten Commandments, the moral law of God that reveals His character, the seventh commandment regarding adultery does not mention homosexual relations specifically. It doesn't mention a man marrying his sister or engaging in sex with animals either. However, are we intelligent enough, and honest enough with ourselves to conclude that none of these are things that represent the character of God? Well, if there was no standard in place to point out that these behaviors are sins then by nature these behaviors can't be considered sins (Romans 3:20, 5:13).
Where then do we find specific outlines and prohibitions against adultery, a man marrying his sister, bestiality and homosexuality? Why in the Mosaic law that was dictated to Moses by God the Father of course. Well, if we aren't under this law anymore, or it's just for Jews, or it was nailed to the cross or whatever excuse to abolish this dictation of law we can come up with then there is NO LAW! And if there is no law, then there is no grace. If there is no grace, then there is no reason for sacrifice. If there is no reason for sacrifice, then there is no reason for Jesus Christ.
Easily then we can conclude, just as we can with Paul's letter to Timothy, that this is exactly what Paul meant when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans; that the very first chapter was rooted in the very law that so many wish to say no longer exists. After all, if we can honestly conclude that when Paul wrote his letter to Timothy he was referring to the Law and the Prophets, then we can come to the very same conclusion regarding his letter to the Romans.
It's been estimated that it was roughly around 63 A.D. when Paul wrote this instruction to Timothy. The New Testament wasn't canonized until about 367 A.D., which of course would have been well after Paul's death. So it must be concluded, logically, that Paul was not referring to the "New Testament" but the "Old" or the entire scriptures of the Law (Torah) and the Prophets (Neviim and Treisar). Any other conclusion simply wouldn't make sense. Either that or we would have to conclude that until the letters of the Apostles were canonized, man was left in limbo by God for 300 years without any standards of right and wrong.
Based on this fact alone, it would be difficult to conclude that Paul was advocating the abolition of the "Law and the Prophets." If he was, why would Paul state that "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God..."? It seems most obvious that Paul was indeed stating that what God had written, by and through the inspiration of men, was good "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
No amount of insistence then that "we are not under the law but under grace" could possibly hold up against this statement by Paul. Murder was just as wrong after the cross as before. Now, this is certainly not meant to suggest that we aren't under grace, because we most certainly are. Jesus Christ came specifically to cover our sin with His blood. More importantly Jesus Christ did not come to Earth to give anyone license to sin.Therefore, it has to be concluded that the standard for sin, the law, is still in place. In the days of the Israelites whenever anyone sinned against the law they had to sacrifice something, by faith, to absolve themselves of that sin (Leviticus 4 and 5). Of course, that sacrifice always pointed forward, in some way, to the coming Messiah that God Himself would have to sacrifice for sin.The difference is that Jesus Christ came to be that sin offering for the sin of the people (John 1:29, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Daniel 9:27). No longer are sinners required to sacrifice bulls, goats and turtledove's for their sins. Since Jesus died on the cross, whenever anyone sins, they now have direct access to the Holy of Hollies, and the very High Priest that sprinkles His own blood and covers that sin with His own blood!
Does that abolish the law? Hardly. What it should do, for everyone, is give each and everyone of us an awesome appreciation for the lengths that God and His Son were willing to go to show us the effects of sin, and just how God the Father intends to have us reconciled to Him! What an awesome promise and display of perfect Love.
Today Christians, or for that matter anyone, who insist that no one is under the law but rather under grace have become a law unto themselves simply by rejecting the very law, and very words of God the Father. If, as David tells us in Psalms 19, the law is perfect then it can not be changed. Something that is made perfect that needs to be changed wasn't perfect after all. There can be no greater example of this than the debate about homosexuality and homosexual marriage that currently rages today.
In the Ten Commandments, the moral law of God that reveals His character, the seventh commandment regarding adultery does not mention homosexual relations specifically. It doesn't mention a man marrying his sister or engaging in sex with animals either. However, are we intelligent enough, and honest enough with ourselves to conclude that none of these are things that represent the character of God? Well, if there was no standard in place to point out that these behaviors are sins then by nature these behaviors can't be considered sins (Romans 3:20, 5:13).
Where then do we find specific outlines and prohibitions against adultery, a man marrying his sister, bestiality and homosexuality? Why in the Mosaic law that was dictated to Moses by God the Father of course. Well, if we aren't under this law anymore, or it's just for Jews, or it was nailed to the cross or whatever excuse to abolish this dictation of law we can come up with then there is NO LAW! And if there is no law, then there is no grace. If there is no grace, then there is no reason for sacrifice. If there is no reason for sacrifice, then there is no reason for Jesus Christ.
Easily then we can conclude, just as we can with Paul's letter to Timothy, that this is exactly what Paul meant when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans; that the very first chapter was rooted in the very law that so many wish to say no longer exists. After all, if we can honestly conclude that when Paul wrote his letter to Timothy he was referring to the Law and the Prophets, then we can come to the very same conclusion regarding his letter to the Romans.
