Did Christ at the cross end all the laws?

[Leaf473]

There are a number of "covenants" in the OT. Which one is specifically the "Old Covenant"?

You see... if we understand "Testament" as it relates to "Testimony" and not "Covenant" we realize that the Old Testament is a testimony of all previous covenants relating to God, mankind, and specifically Israel.

Well... I would say that specifically the old Covenant is the one that God made with the Israelites when he brought them out of Egypt.

In Jeremiah 31 (and Hebrews 8), God says he's going to make a new covenant with the Israelites. It's not like the covenant he made when they came out of Egypt.

So we have two covenants: the new covenant, and the Coming out of Egypt covenant. If one is called 'new" what's a good shorthand for the other one? And I think that's where "old covenant" comes in.

Hundreds of years ago when the Catholic bishops and also the church of England were translating the Bible into English, the word "testament" had an overlapping meaning with the word "covenant".

And Yes it's true that today, we still use Old Testament and New Testament to refer to sections of the Bible.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

You are simply evading the argument I have provided and simply claiming that a literal interpretation is appropriate. That is not how proper debate proceeds. Please address my actual argument.

All of your arguments have been addressed with detailed scripture responses showing the scripture contexts your disregarding that do not agree with your claims and teachings of lawlessness (without law) in post # 691; post # 722 linked; post # 723 linked; post # 724 linked; post # 732 linked. I am still waiting for a response from you to actually address my posts to you. Sadly is it you who is evading the discussion. Anyhow my prayer is that you might take your time to read these posts and scriptures that have been shared with you only out of love as a help because as shown from the scriptures in the linked posts above Gods' Word does not teach lawlessness or God's Law is abolished. So now what you believe is between you and God so we will agree to disagree if your unwilling to address my posts as I do not see our discussion going anywhere so I will leave these scriptures between you and God and hope only the best for you.

Take Care.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

If more Christians followed the not only the Scriptures, but the Fathers, the Councils, and the Magisterium we'd have far less confusion with every Christian making it up for themselves as they go while trying to convince everyone around them that their personal interpretation is correct.

Rome too...

 

[SabbathBlessings]

As I meditate and ponder these things, I'm reminded that there are a lot of things that can only be understood if one leans on not only Scripture, but Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.

Only by consulting Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are such things properly discerned. Else one walks off a cliff divorced from all historicity and Christian practice down through the ages.

The promises of God’s Word tells us something different….

John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

We are promised the Holy Spirit is given to those who obey God. John 14:15-18, Acts 5:32

Jesus out of His own mouth said not to keep traditions of man over the commandments of God. Matthew 15:3-9, Mark 7:7-8 and we should not change one dot of God’s laws which especially include the Ten Commandments that God personally wrote with His own finger.

The problem with man thinking they have equal or greater over authority over the scripture is they start to change a little of God’s Word here or a little there and pretty soon, its nothing like what the scriptures teach. Only the Word of God is pure and we are called to worship Him in both Spirit and Truth. John 4:23-24

God bless!

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I think you're misunderstanding me. The Scripture, Magisterium, and Sacred Tradition are to agree and point to Christ.

We are not to take one over the other. We are not to value tradition over Scripture, nor Scripture over tradition. Nor Magisterium over either. They are brought into a harmony which has governed the our Church for over 20 centuries... going all the way back to when Jesus founded our Church upon Peter.

Frankly, everything else is a modern garage band startup church. lol

Please forgive me but I do not believe you. I prefer the scriptures shared with you.

 

[expos4ever]

If the Law of Moses and the 10 Commandments (which you do not draw distinction between) are retired... what body of law still stands to condemn sin and draw people to Christ by revealing their need of a Savior???

The teachings of Jesus and the "inner voice" of the Holy Spirit.

And if the 10 Commandments are a part of the retired Law of Moses... why is it imperative according to St. Paul that believers fulfill the Ten Commandments through love???

I believe that Paul is saying that if we love we will automatically fulfill the Law - we have no need to refer to a "list" of do's and don'ts". So we can say the law is "retired" in the sense that we do not need it to guide our actions - as Paul says, if we love, we have done all we need to do.

 

[expos4ever]

There was no strawman from the post you were quoting from.

Yes there was a strawman - I have never denied that sin is lawlessness. I have explained this many times.

 

[expos4ever]

For me I think the key here is in seeking Jesus through His Word and claiming His promises to be our guide and teacher (see John 16:13: John 7:17; John 14:26; 1 John 2:27) which are conditional of course of continuing to believe and follow Jesus through His Word (see John 8:31-36). Many people do not seek Jesus through His Word to be their guide and teacher. They instead seek to know Jesus through the teachings and traditions of men outside of Gods' Word and praying that God will teach them His Word through His Spirit. Gods Word therefore should not be a challenge to us if we seek Jesus for His Spirit to guide us and teach us His Words.

Nice sermon.

As shown in the post you are micro-quoting here. There is not a single scripture in all of Gods' Word that says God's 10 commandments have been abolished that is a teaching of lawlessness (without law).

From Paul in Romans 7:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter

How is this not a declaration that the Law, and in particular the 10, has been set aside? We know he is talking about the 10 here since he goes on to cite the commandment about coveting.

 

[expos4ever]

According to the scriptures, According to the scriptures the purpose of God's 10 commandments (not 9, or 613) is to give us the knowledge of good (moral right doing) when obeyed and evil (moral wrong doing when disobeyed)

No, the purpose of the Law was to give the Jew such knowledge. And the Law was set aside at the cross. Plus we know that Paul believes the Gentile does not need the Law of Moses:

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them

You appear to be at odds with Paul - he is pointing out that the Gentile, who does not even know the 10 commandments is effectively made aware of sin through their consciences.

 

[expos4ever]

Your making assertions and argument here no one is arguing about.

Incorrect. Sabbath Blessings has repeatedly used Romans 7:7, the text about sin=lawlessness, and Romans 3:20 to argue that we still need the law. My post is a direct challenge to that.

No one has ever said to you that we are justified by the works of the law so if no one has ever said or believes that we are saved by the works of the law why are you pretending that they are?

Where have I posted anything that suggests I believe anyone believes we are justified by works of the Law?

 

[expos4ever]

You may want to read a little further in Romans 3 down to Romans 3:31 where Paul asks the question "Do we then make void (or abolish) the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Paul is direction in disagreement with you here.

Not quite. I have addressed Romans 3:31 before. Here is my argument:

Here is that famous Romans 3:31 passage:

Do we then nullify the Law through faith? Far from it! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

On the surface, this seems like a ringing endorsement of the position that that Law, including the 10, remains in force.

But, of course, we also have this from the same letter:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

Obviously, there appears to be a contradiction.

Now back to Romans 3: Paul starts with a treatment of how both Jew and Gentile are sinners even though the Jew was entrusted with "the actual words of God". Next we get this critical transition:

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed,....

Paul is telling us about an unfolding story, and pointing out where we are in that story. And where are we? We are at the point where Jesus enters the story and justification by faith is made clear (as opposed to justification by the Law).

This leads to the obvious question - was the Law a mistake?

Do we then nullify the Law through faith?

Answer: no, we "establish" the Law in the very specific sense that we affirm its fundamental goodness and proper role in the evolving redemption narrative even though the Law has fulfilled its role and can be retired.

This, I suggest, is a plausible way to understand Romans 3:31.

 

[expos4ever]

The scripture in Isaiah 42:21 shows that Jesus came in fact to magnify the law and to make it honorable....

Here is Isaiah 42:21 in the NASB:

The Lord was pleased for His righteousness’ sake
To make the Law great and glorious.

Where does this text say Jesus wants the Law to persist beyond the cross?

I can argue that this text is perfectly coherent with what I have been saying about the Law all along - that it was a good thing that has served its purpose and is now to be retired. This is not any kind of denial that the Law was "great and glorious".

 

[expos4ever]

...which agrees with Paul in Romans 7:7 where he says that the purpose of Gods' 10 commandments (quoting the 10th commandment) is to give us the knowledge of what sin is when broken. This agrees with what Paul says in Romans 3:20 where he says for by the law we have a knowledge of what sin is when we break it.

About Romans 7:7: You conveniently omit verse 6 which says we no longer serve the letter of the law. The only way I have seen you guys deal with this text is to take it upon yourselves to change "serve the letter of the law" to "be judged by the letter of the law". Really? That's the argument. Now about verse 7, Paul the law gave him (past tense) knowledge of sin. It therefore is entirely conceivable to imagine the law has been retired and Paul is reflecting on its role when it was in force.

About Romans 3:20: You ignore the context of an evolving narrative: in context, Paul is describing what was the case - that the Law did, in the past, let the Jew know what sin was. How do we know that this is now in the past? The very next verse! But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed, ....

 

[Guojing]

Okay... let me see if I understand what you're saying.

For the body of Christ, all laws ended at the cross.

For the true Israel, all laws ended either at their death or at the destruction of the Temple.

Did I get that right?

We gentiles were never under the Law of Moses.

For true Israel, okay I can agree with you there.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Yes there was a strawman - I have never denied that sin is lawlessness. I have explained this many times.

You must have me mixed up with someone else. I have never said you think sin is not lawlessness. I do not think you are reading the full post you are quoting from. Perhaps you should re-read it.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ For me I think the key here is in seeking Jesus through His Word and claiming His promises to be our guide and teacher (see John 16:13: John 7:17; John 14:26; 1 John 2:27) which are conditional of course of continuing to believe and follow Jesus through His Word (see John 8:31-36). Many people do not seek Jesus through His Word to be their guide and teacher. They instead seek to know Jesus through the teachings and traditions of men outside of Gods' Word and praying that God will teach them His Word through His Spirit. Gods Word therefore should not be a challenge to us if we seek Jesus for His Spirit to guide us and teach us His Words.

Your response here...

Nice sermon.

Ok how does that address anything in the post you are quoting from? - It doesn't so I am assuming you agree with that has been shared with you.

LoveGodsWord said: ↑LoveGodsWord said: ↑ As shown in the post you are micro-quoting here. There is not a single scripture in all of Gods' Word that says God's 10 commandments have been abolished that is a teaching of lawlessness (without law).

Your response here..

From Paul in Romans 7: But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter
How is this not a declaration that the Law, and in particular the 10, has been set aside? We know he is talking about the 10 here since he goes on to cite the commandment about coveting.

Romans 7 is not teaching lawlessness or God's law is abolished (read Romans 6- Romans 8). It is contrasting the law of sin in the flesh without God's Spirit and the Law of God which Paul calls holy just and good. Your disregarding the scripture contexts again. There is no separation of chapters in the book of Romans. Read Romans 6:1-23 through to Romans 8:1-13. The context contrasts those who live in the flesh against those who walk in the Spirit,

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ According to the scriptures the purpose of God's 10 commandments (not 9, or 613) is to give us the knowledge of good (moral right doing) when obeyed and evil (moral wrong doing when disobeyed)

Your response here.

No, the purpose of the Law was to give the Jew such knowledge. And the Law was set aside at the cross. Plus we know that Paul believes the Gentile does not need the Law of Moses: For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them You appear to be at odds with Paul - he is pointing out that the Gentile, who does not even know the 10 commandments is effectively made aware of sin through their consciences.

No, Paul does not contradict himself as Gods' Word does not contradict itself. You may want to consider the scripture context again but let me show why if it might be helpful. Romans 2:1-16 is talking about God not being a respecter of persons and is contrasting Jews with Gentiles showing that God will render every man according to His deeds. The immediate context to Romans 2:14-15 that you quoted is in Romans 2:12-13 that says "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." Did you catch that? Sin is defined in the scriptures as the transgression of God's law *1 John 3:4. Paul says if we break God's commandments we sin in Romans 7:7 and through the law we have a knowledge of what sin is in Romans 3:20 which agrees with James in James 2:10-11. Now let me ask again. Did you catch that? Romans 2:12-13 says "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." So Paul is saying that if you sin (transgressed Gods' law) even if you do not know Gods' law (Gentiles) you will perish without the law and again if you sin (transgress Gods law) in the law (knowing Gods' law) you will be judged by the law. Then Paul contrast this in Romans 2:14-15 that says; "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law (obey Gods law), these, having not the law (do not know the law), are a law to themselves: Which show 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." That is if the gentiles that do now know Gods' law obey Gods' law they are not condemned of judged by the law because the law is written on their hearts because they are obeying it. They are a law unto themselves. Then Paul continues the discussion around individual laws from God's 10 commandments to circumcision. If you continue reading through to Romans 3:1-31 you will see Paul is showing both Jews and gentiles are all under sin. That is they have all broken God's law standing guilty before God of sin *Romans 3:19 because we have all sinned and are in need of God's grace through Jesus. So Paul in Romans @:14-15 is not saying that the gentiles do not sin. So there is no contradiction my side. The contradiction is all your side if you believe Paul is teaching lawlessness (without law). That interpretation does not make any sense because Paul shows that it is through the law we have a knowledge of what sin is in Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7 which your disregarding.

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ Your making assertions and argument here no one is arguing about. No one has ever said to you that we are justified by the works of the law so if no one has ever said or believes that we are saved by the works of the law why are you pretending that they are? If no one has ever said to you that we are saved by the works of the law what is your argument? - You have none because we are in agreement.

According to the scriptures, we are saved by grace through faith and not of ourselves it is a gift of God and not of works lest any man should boast *Ephesians 2:8-9. Obedience to God's law is not how we are saved because all of us have already broken the law and are under it's penalty of condemnation and death *Romans 3:9-23; 2 Corinthians 3:3-11. So it is by God's grace through faith in Gods' Word that we are saved through Gods forgiveness of our sins being justified by the blood of Christ and his death and sacrifice for our sins given as a free gift to all those who have faith. According to the scriptures, obedience to what Gods Word says is the fruit of genuine faith of one that is already been given Gods promise of salvation and the fruit of God's work in us *Philippians 2:13 is obedience to the faith *Romans 1:5 as we believe and follow what his word says *John 10:26-27. If our faith has no fruit it is dead *James 2:18-20; 26 and does not lead to obeying Gods' Word then our tree will be cast down and thrown into the fire *Matthew 3:10; 7:19-20; 13:49-50; Hebrews 10:26-27.

You may want to read a little further in Romans 3 down to Romans 3:31 where Paul asks the question "Do we then make void (or abolish) the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Paul is direction in disagreement with you here. Paul is showing in Romans 3 faith does not abolish Gods' law it establishes Gods' law in the lives of those who have faith. Your disregarding scripture context that has led you into a false teaching of "lawlessness" (without law) which is not biblical and what Jesus warns us about in Matthew 5:17 and John in 1 John 2:3-4 and 1 John 3:9-10. Romans 3:20 was only cited in connection with Romans 7:7, 1 John 3:4 and James 2:10-11 to show that Gods' 10 commandments give us a knowledge of what sin is when broken. As Paul says faith does not abolish God's law like your teachings it establishes it - Romans 3:31.

Your response here...

Incorrect. Sabbath Blessings has repeatedly used Romans 7:7, the text about sin=lawlessness, and Romans 3:20 to argue that we still need the law. My post is a direct challenge to that.

Please re-read the post you are quoting from. It is absolutely correct. Romans 7:7 does not say "sin is lawlessness" it says [7], What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. No, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, You shall not covet. It is saying that through the 10 commandments we have a knowledge of what sin is agreeing with what Paul states earlier in Romans 3:20 where he says it is through the law we have a knowledge of what sin is. I do not believe your posts have challenged anything. Gods' Word does not teach lawlessness (without law) or God's 10 commandments are abolished anywhere in the scriptures.

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Not quite. I have addressed Romans 3:31 before. Here is my argument:

Here is that famous Romans 3:31 passage:

Do we then nullify the Law through faith? Far from it! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

On the surface, this seems like a ringing endorsement of the position that that Law, including the 10, remains in force.

But, of course, we also have this from the same letter:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

Obviously, there appears to be a contradiction.

Now back to Romans 3: Paul starts with a treatment of how both Jew and Gentile are sinners even though the Jew was entrusted with "the actual words of God". Next we get this critical transition:

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed,....

Paul is telling us about an unfolding story, and pointing out where we are in that story. And where are we? We are at the point where Jesus enters the story and justification by faith is made clear (as opposed to justification by the Law).

This leads to the obvious question - was the Law a mistake?

Do we then nullify the Law through faith?

Answer: no, we "establish" the Law in the very specific sense that we affirm its fundamental goodness and proper role in the evolving redemption narrative even though the Law has fulfilled its role and can be retired.

This, I suggest, is a plausible way to understand Romans 3:31.

Not really. You could have saved yourself some trouble here. I did not say read Romans 3:31 I said to read Romans 3:1-31 which is the entire chapter that Paul shows all are under sin for all have sinned and through the law is the knowledge of what sin is and because we all stand guilty before God of sin we cannot be justified by the works of the law. Therefore we can only be justified by the grace of God to receive His righteousness through faith then finishes by Paul saying that faith does not abolish Gods' law like you are teaching but establishes Gods' law in those who have faith. Please re-read all the post you are quoting from. It seems you did not read it or have a misunderstanding.

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ As shown through the scripture context you are disregarding in Matthew 5 there is nowhere in all of Matthew 5 or the rest of the bible that says Gods law has been abolished. Your teaching of lawlessness (without law) is not supported in the scriptures. According to the scripture context your disregarding, Jesus says; For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven *Matthew 5:20. The scripture in Isaiah 42:21 shows that Jesus came in fact to magnify the law and to make it honorable and to teach the true meaning of God's Law and that it is to be applied from the inside out to our very thoughts and feelings. It is not therefore good enough to have an outward appearance before men of being obedient to Gods' law. God reads the heart and knows we are all sick with sin *Matthew 15:19-20; Matthew 12:34-35; Jeremiah 13:23; Jeremiah 17:9-10; Matthew 15:19-20; John 5:42 and in need of a new heart and of a Saviour to save us from sin. Many do not know the meaning here according to Jesus in Matthew 9:12-13. What your disregarding in Matthew 5 is that Jesus is not abolishing Gods' law as he has already stated in Matthew 5:17 where he tells us not to even think that is what he is doing but Jesus makes this very clear in the rest of the chapter where he then goes on to magnify Gods' 10 commandments in Matthew 5:21-28 where he talks about murdering your fellow man by being angry with them without reason or committing adultery in our thoughts by looking lustfully at a woman. Think it through dear friend. If Jesus was abolishing Gods' 10 commandments he would not be magnifying them and applying them to our very thoughts and feelings. Ephesians 2:15 has nothing to do with Gods' 10 commandments. It is to the laws in ordinances and Jesus breaking down the walls of separation between Jewish and Gentile believers.

Your response here

Here is Isaiah 42:21 in the NASB:
The Lord was pleased for His righteousness’ sake To make the Law great and glorious.
Where does this text say Jesus wants the Law to persist beyond the cross?

It says that Gods' law persists in the rest of the post you are quoting from in Matthew 5 (see also the scriptures already provided in post # 691; post # 722 linked; post # 723 linked; post # 724 linked; post # 732 linked. You might also want to consider that everyone of Gods' 10 commandments are repeated all through the new testament (scripture provided here linked). Also if you were not aware Jesus and all the Apostles taught and upheld Gods' law all through the new testament after the death of Jesus (scripture support here linked). Take your time and read the scriptures and what is being shared with you.

Take Care.