Removing the laws of God- what does it really mean?

[Nathan@work]

Maybe the issue here is the definition of 'Covenant'.

What is your definition of covenant?

 

[Clare73]

"See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. But encourage one another as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first."
NB: There is an issue of not holding firmly, of falling way (rebellion, apostasy) by the NT Hebrews that the writer is addressing. They were considering a return to their OT religion, perhaps because of persecution by their fellow Hebrews, or threats of their

families to disinherit them, or both.
This passage is actually the second of five warnings in the letter:
1) 2:1-4 - pay attention to the gospel,
2) 3:7-4:13 - do not fail to believe,
3) 5:11-6:12 - do not fall away (apostasy),
4) 10:19-39 - do not lapse back,
5) 12:14-29 - do not refuse God.

Back to the point being made in the beginning. Their falling way, their rebellion, their unbelief. Was their lack of commitment, trusting God and in all things and forsaking sin; not them wanting to turn back to their OT religion. What you you are asserting is
an assumption that can not be proven in Hebrews. So why go there?

Done. . .in post #1259, Removing the laws of God- what does it really mean?

 

[pescador]

Maybe the issue here is the definition of 'Covenant'.

What is your definition of covenant?

A covenant is simply an agreement. God's covenant is more accurately a suzerainty: an agreement in which one party is subservient to the other -- a "one way street". In the case of the First Covenant, the subjects had to obey God's laws. In the case of the Second Covenant, the subjects are actually adopted children, not subjects, loved by God.

 

[Nathan@work]

A covenant is simply an agreement. God's covenant is more accurately a suzerainty: an agreement in which one party is subservient to the other -- a "one way street". In the case of the First Covenant, the subjects had to obey God's laws. In the case of the Second Covenant, the subjects are actually adopted children, not subjects, loved by God.

So according to your definition, what is the result of the subjects obeying God's law under the First Covenant?

 

[pescador]

So according to your definition, what is the result of the subjects obeying God's law under the First Covenant?

That's a hypothetical question, since nobody is able to keep the First Covenant in its entirety. "All have sinned... "

Romans 3:19-24, " Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For no one is declared righteous before him by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin. But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (although it is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed—namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."

One can get caught up in the First Covenant cycle of sin-sacrifice-repentance forever, but it's fruitless.

 

[Nathan@work]

That's a hypothetical question, since nobody is able to keep the First Covenant in its entirety. "All have sinned... "

Romans 3:19-24, " Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For no one is declared righteous before him by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin. But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (although it is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed—namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."

One can get caught up in the First Covenant cycle of sin-sacrifice-repentance forever, but it's fruitless.

Does that mean the First Covenant is hypothetical?

Regardless, hypothetical or not, if a person was able to keep, then at this present time what would be the result?

 

[pescador]

No, your question is hypothetical, since it is impossible to keep all the terms of the First Covenant.

"... if a person was able to keep [the First Covenant], then at this present time what would be the result?" Again, your question is hypothetical. Nobody (except Jesus) has ever been able to keep the First Covenant in its entirety.

 

[Nathan@work]

No, your question is hypothetical, since it is impossible to keep all the terms of the First Covenant.

"... if a person was able to keep [the First Covenant], then at this present time what would be the result?" Again, your question is hypothetical. Nobody (except Jesus) has ever been able to keep the First Covenant in its entirety.

Ah, so it is possible since Jesus kept it. Therefore, it is not hypothetical.

 

[Clare73]

Over 1350 posts, when the NT is so simple and clear on the matter.

From Paul--1 Corinthians 9:20-21:

I myself am not under the law,
"Under the law" is under its power and curse to condemn.


though I am not free from God's law,
In the New Covenant one is not free to violate the Decalogue.


but am under Christ's law. (Romans 13:8-10)
The royal law of Matthew 22:37-40, which subsumes the Decalogue.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Over 1350 posts, when the NT is so simple and clear on the matter.

From Paul--1 Corinthians 9:20-21:

I myself am not under the law,
"Under the law" is under its power and curse to condemn.


though I am not free from God's law,
In the New Covenant one is not free to violate the Decalogue.


but am under Christ's law. (Romans 13:8-10)
The royal law of Matthew 22:37-40, which subsumes the Decalogue.

Lets not forget, the New Covenant includes all Ten Commandments (Decalogue) written in our hearts but are also literal. I agree it is easy to understand!

 

[pescador]

Ah, so it is possible since Jesus kept it. Therefore, it is not hypothetical.

As I said, nobody (except Jesus) has ever been able to keep the First Covenant in its entirety. What is it about "nobody (except Jesus)..." that you don't understand?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

As I said, nobody (except Jesus) has ever been able to keep the First Covenant in its entirety. What is it about "nobody (except Jesus)..." that you don't understand?

We are all required to keep the second covenant which are the laws of God, now written in our hearts and minds. According to scripture this can be accomplished with the Help of the Holy Spirit.

Revelations 12:17 And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

 

[Leaf473]

Are you willing to bet everything on that because when Jesus said He did not come to destroy the law maybe He really meant it?

Not sure why this random verse would be almost at the end of the Bible if we were meant to discard it.

Revelations 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

I'm willing to bet everything on the spirit guiding me into all truth, yes!

Jesus didn't come to destroy the law and the prophets he came to fulfill them.

We are not meant to discard any part of God's word or commandments.

 

[Nathan@work]

As I said, nobody (except Jesus) has ever been able to keep the First Covenant in its entirety. What is it about "nobody (except Jesus)..." that you don't understand?

Jesus is somebody. So technically you cannot say 'nobody'.

Jesus redeemed those who were under the First Covenant by fulfilling the requirements of it.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Jesus is somebody. So technically you cannot say 'nobody'.

Jesus redeemed those who were under the First Covenant by fulfilling the requirements of it.

The time between death and ascension played part of finishing the fact as well.

 

[Nathan@work]

The time between death and ascension played part of finishing the fact as well.

Details?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Details?

There was no propitiation before Christ became Christianity's new creation, Him being the New Jerusalem that Hebrews 11 pointed back and forward to.

 

[Leaf473]

First of all the 10 was given by God, not Moses. They were written by His hand and spoken by His voice. We are told they are forever
Psalms 111: 7 The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure.8 They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.

So you do not think the Ten apply today? Are you free to lie, covet, steal, worship gods, murder etc.?

The passage in Revelations means exactly as it reads. That's why there is only a remnant who still keep God's commandment because it has been eroded over the generations. His commandments stand sure and are forever. You might want to get this one right, because there is a lot at stake when we think God's laws no longer apply according to many scriptures in the Bible. God bless

So, just to recap a bit here,

I believe we have agreed that God spoke and wrote the ten commandments, and God spoke all of the commandments that were given through Moses.

And all of the commandments, including the 10, were delivered by Moses.

And I haven't heard anything from you to the contrary, so I'm assuming we agree that all of the commandments, indeed all of God's words, stand forever.

So, moving on...

"So you do not think the Ten apply today? Are you free to lie, covet, steal, worship gods, murder etc.?"

The ten commandments are fulfilled, along with the rest of the law.

I haven't eaten pork for quite a while. This does not mean that I am attempting to keep that particular dietary law.
In the same way, I may end up doing many of the things that a person keeping the ten commandments would do. But I'm not doing them because I'm trying to keep the 10.

I don't try to keep the 10, because I am not under the law.

Does that answer your question, or do you want me to talk more about it?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

So, just to recap a bit here,

I believe we have agreed that God spoke and wrote the ten commandments, and God spoke all of the commandments that were given through Moses.

And all of the commandments, including the 10, were delivered by Moses.

And I haven't heard anything from you to the contrary, so I'm assuming we agree that all of the commandments, indeed all of God's words, stand forever.

So, moving on...

"So you do not think the Ten apply today? Are you free to lie, covet, steal, worship gods, murder etc.?"

The ten commandments are fulfilled, along with the rest of the law.

I haven't eaten pork for quite a while. This does not mean that I am attempting to keep that particular dietary law.
In the same way, I may end up doing many of the things that a person keeping the ten commandments would do. But I'm not doing them because I'm trying to keep the 10.

I don't try to keep the 10, because I am not under the law.

Does that answer your question, or do you want me to talk more about it?

Hi Leaf!

Quick question is your definition of “fulfilled” mean no longer required? Maybe you can elaborate....

I am trying to catch up on your other posts and will probably respond to those as soon as I can!

 

[pescador]

Jesus is somebody. So technically you cannot say 'nobody'.

Jesus redeemed those who were under the First Covenant by fulfilling the requirements of it.

I'm not interested in debating semantics. Here is earlier post...

As I said, nobody (except Jesus) has ever been able to keep the First Covenant in its entirety. What is it about "nobody (except Jesus)..." that you don't understand?