Sin is Transgression of the Law - 1 John 3:4

[Studyman]

So much for those who proclaim God never changes.

What God are you speaking about Bob? The God of the Holy Scriptures has always been a God of Mercy?

How about providing scripture to back up the claim sacrifices and burnt offerings were added to the original covenant. In Gen4 we read of Cain and Able's offerings to the Lord.

They brought freewill offerings to God. One brought of his increase, the other brought of his. One was the best of his herd, and the other from the ground. Was this an offering for their sins? And if this is your religious philosophy, can you provide even ONE Scripture to support it?

Gen. 4: 2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. 3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. 4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

This doesn't make Jeremiah a false prophet.

That covenant called the Mosaic or Sinai covenant was the one given to Israel at Sinai and ended at Calvary. This was the same covenant that ended at Calvary. You have not proven that is not correct.

This is your religion, your religious philosophy you have adopted now. I disagree with it based on what the scriptures actually say.

God made another Covenant with Israel, "Because they broke the one which had been given". This is simply biblical fact. God's Covenant was broken, the tablets of stone shattered. Even you can't deny this. Moses had to go up a second time, as he said: "And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the LORD; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin.

Why did Moses have to go up in the hopes of gaining their forgiveness????? Because there was no Provision for atonement in the Covenant of Abraham God passed on to his children. They were both given the same Covenant.

Gen. 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. 2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

Ex. 19: 5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

Matt. 5: 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Same God, same Scriptures, same Gospel.

I can't help it if your latest religion doesn't teach this. It's certainly in your own bible.

In this Covenant God gave to Moses the 2nd time, there was provisions made for the atonement of sins which included common men taking goats to a Levite Priest. (Lev. 4) This Law, "Added" because of Transgressions, required that a man bring for his sin, an animal to the Levite Priest and kill it, The Priest would then sprinkle its blood on an alter and burn the fat. There was no such provision concerning burnt offering and sacrifices for sins in the Covenant they broke. As the Christ of the Bible teaches us in Jeremiah that I posted. And this part of the Covenant, was ADDED "Till the Seed should Come", and of course it did. These sacrificial "works of the law" were a shadow of what HE would do for those who turned to Him in Repentance.

This "Covenant with Levi" didn't exist when God gave Israel His Sabbath, or Passover, or Feast of Unleavened bread. Here is what the Spirit of Christ teaches us about this Covenant that God promised to change "After those days".

Mal. 2: 4 And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.

5 My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name.

When did Levi Fear God in all the Scriptures? Can you find any other place, if so please enlighten me.

Ex. 32: 26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.

Just because these Scriptures are not considered or believed in your religion, doesn't make them not true.

The Pharisees didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah, so they continued to promote these sacrificial "Works of the Law" for remission of Sins. The deceiver would have us believe that the Pharisees were trying to get people to obey God's Laws, and that this was the "Works of the Law" Paul was rebuking them for. But the Jesus of the Bible exposes this widely believed deception. "And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." And Paul does as well.

Rom. 10: 3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

I know many don't believe any of this stuff, as the religion they have adopted doesn't teach it, like your doesn't teach it. Nevertheless, it is written in your own Bible, all a man needs is Faith in this God, a God of Mercy.

I guess you dug deep enough you were able to find a verse that appears to prove your point. The law that "was added" were the words of the Sinai covenant. (Around 613 of them)

There were never 613 laws given to even ONE person by God in the History of the entire Bible. You didn't count them, you are simply regurgitating someone else's sermon, or a web site you thought you could use to promote a popular religious philosophy. It's a deception to help men further the insidious falsehood that God gave Abraham His Laws, Statutes, Judgments and Commandments, and they were not impossible to follow because Abraham is said, by God, to have obeyed them. But then, with no warning prophesy nothing, modern religions imply in their teaching that this same God changed everything and chose to give Abraham's Children completely different Laws so many in number, and such a Yoke of Bondage that they were impossible to keep.

This kind of ignorance and deception is widely believed because there are so "many" who come in Christ's Name who are implying this nonsense. Jesus warned about these very men, and Paul did as well.

"They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate."

The "LAW" that was ADDED, was not "Love God and Love your neighbor" and all that hangs on them. The LAW that was added was added because of transgression of these instructions. Your unbelief in these Scriptures, do not make them void.

Thus, negating the 613 laws. Remember Ex19:5-6 where God told Moses the covenant was an "IF" covenant. If they keep the covenant I will....

Can you answer me ONE question? The Sayings posted below. In your religion, are these all from the Same Rock of Israel, the Same Christ who made all things that were made, which became flesh in the person of Jesus? Or do you believe they are Different Christ's?

Gen. 1: 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Ex. 19: 5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

Ez. 18: 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. 21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

Jer. 26: 3 If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings.

Is. 58: 13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:

John 14: 15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Matt. 10: 12 And when ye come into an house, salute it. 13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.

Matt. 19: 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Matt. 15: 14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

Matt. 17: 20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Mark 4: 23 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

Mark 9: 23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

Luke 9: 23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

Luke 16: 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

I have heard of this "IF" philosophy before. As you can see, it doesn't hold up when a man believes in the Jesus of the Bible and considers "Every Word" of God.

Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) is almost over, and we are studying with the children. I have printed and our small group has studied your religious philosophy, posts and threads for several years now. You always represent modern religions of this world very well.

And we are grateful for that as we have learned a lot. But I must go for now, I will finish commenting on your reply tomorrow.

Thanks for the frank discussion.

 

[BobRyan]

Is mankind under the new covenant?

No -- only saved people of OT and NT are under it. Everyone else is under the obey-and-live OC of Gal 3 -just as Paul says in Rom 3:19-20

 

[BobRyan]

I don't think @BobRyan has ever stated there are only 10 commandments. The point I believe he is making is that all 10 are included in the commandments of God and included in 1 John 3:4, Romans 3:20 and obviously Romans 7:7.

True. God did not say that everything in the OT is deleted except for TEN commandments. Rather scripture in the OT was being affirmed by the NT writers.

 

[BobRyan]

The Old Covenant that was changed was not God's Word defining sin and righteousness. There was never a teaching that these would become obsolete.

What became obsolete was not "Do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7. What became obsolete was the "Covenant" the "condition" of Gen 2 "obey and live" where one sin would end the covenant and condemn the human to the lake of fire. Under that covenant there was not provision for forgiveness of sins. Only through the gospel could humans - fallen in sin - have salvation.

IT is not a matter of deleting the command "do not take God's name in vain". That command exists in both the OC and the NC. IT is our relationship to the law that changes. Under the Jer 31-31-34 New Covenant that Law is written on the heart (born again, new creation, new heart) , sins are forgiven and we are adopted. Thus ends our OC relationship to God and begins our NC life with God.

As Gal 3 states it is "when FAITH comes" that everything changes.

Every one who is lost today is lost under that same OC condition of "Obey and Live"

 

[Studyman]

What became obsolete was not "Do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7. What became obsolete was the "Covenant" the "condition" of Gen 2 "obey and live" where one sin would end the covenant and condemn the human to the lake of fire. Under that covenant there was not provision for forgiveness of sins. Only through the gospel could humans - fallen in sin - have salvation.

IT is not a matter of deleting the command "do not take God's name in vain". That command exists in both the OC and the NC. IT is our relationship to the law that changes. Under the Jer 31-31-34 New Covenant that Law is written on the heart (born again, new creation, new heart) , sins are forgiven and we are adopted. Thus ends our OC relationship to God and begins our NC life with God.

As Gal 3 states it is "when FAITH comes" that everything changes.

Every one who is lost today is lost under that same OC condition of "Obey and Live"

I don't prescribe to this religious philosophy you are promoting here Bob for the following reasons. The Christ, the Holy One of Israel always promoted a new man, a "A New Heart and a New Spirit" in our relationship with Him. That isn't a "New Covenant" and certainly not the New Covenant this same Christ Defines for us in Jer. 31., "After those days", in my view.

Gen. 12: 1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: (Is this not Abraham becoming a New Man?)

Duet. 10: 16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. (Become a NEW Man, Yes?)

Num. 14: 24 But my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and hath followed me fully, him will I bring into the land whereinto he went; and his seed shall possess it. (He became a New Man)

Ez. 18: 31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

It seems, in my studies, this part of Man's relationship with God has remained as it was from the beginning. "If you do well, shall thou not be accepted?"

If a person consider all that is written, it seems there are two things that changed in the New Covenant over the Old as defined by its Creator in Jer. 31, and that is;

#1. The manner in which God's Laws are administered.

#2. The manner in which transgression of these Laws are forgiven.

Prior to "After those days", a man could only "Hear Moses" through the Levitical Priesthood who were charged with keeping the Book of the Law. But now that has changed as promised. God has delivered His Oracles into the homes and hearts of everyone. We don't need some random Levite, or Scribe or anyone to know God, for we all know Him from the least to the Greatest. It's just that many don't glorify Him as God. But that's another topic.

And Prior to "After those days" forgiveness could only be achieved by engaging with a Levite Priest, and partaking of sacrificial, ceremonial "Works of the Law" for forgiveness.

But now the "SEED" has Come, and there is no more Need for these sacrificial "works of law" of forgiveness, as the Christ Himself forgives our sins "Apart" from these "works of the Law", same as HE did for Abraham. This was a huge deal, as the Jews had created a huge religious business founded on this Priesthood.

It seems clear to me that it was the Priesthood Covenant that Changed, as Prophesied. A Covenant Abraham didn't have as it wasn't "ADDED" until 430 years after him. A covenant that was "ADDED": because of transgressions "Till the seed should Come".

I don't see man's relationship with God changing at all in the New Covenant, only the Priesthood.

 

[HIM]

I don't prescribe to this religious philosophy you are promoting here Bob for the following reasons. The Christ, the Holy One of Israel always promoted a new man, a "A New Heart and a New Spirit" in our relationship with Him. That isn't a "New Covenant" and certainly not the New Covenant this same Christ Defines for us in Jer. 31., "After those days", in my view.

Gen. 12: 1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: (Is this not Abraham becoming a New Man?)

Duet. 10: 16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. (Become a NEW Man, Yes?)

Num. 14: 24 But my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and hath followed me fully, him will I bring into the land whereinto he went; and his seed shall possess it. (He became a New Man)

Ez. 18: 31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

It seems, in my studies, this part of Man's relationship with God has remained as it was from the beginning. "If you do well, shall thou not be accepted?"

If a person consider all that is written, it seems there are two things that changed in the New Covenant over the Old as defined by its Creator in Jer. 31, and that is;

#1. The manner in which God's Laws are administered.

#2. The manner in which transgression of these Laws are forgiven.

Prior to "After those days", a man could only "Hear Moses" through the Levitical Priesthood who were charged with keeping the Book of the Law. But now that has changed as promised. God has delivered His Oracles into the homes and hearts of everyone. We don't need some random Levite, or Scribe or anyone to know God, for we all know Him from the least to the Greatest. It's just that many don't glorify Him as God. But that's another topic.

And Prior to "After those days" forgiveness could only be achieved by engaging with a Levite Priest, and partaking of sacrificial, ceremonial "Works of the Law" for forgiveness.

But now the "SEED" has Come, and there is no more Need for these sacrificial "works of law" of forgiveness, as the Christ Himself forgives our sins "Apart" from these "works of the Law", same as HE did for Abraham. This was a huge deal, as the Jews had created a huge religious business founded on this Priesthood.

It seems clear to me that it was the Priesthood Covenant that Changed, as Prophesied. A Covenant Abraham didn't have as it wasn't "ADDED" until 430 years after him. A covenant that was "ADDED": because of transgressions "Till the seed should Come".

I don't see man's relationship with God changing at all in the New Covenant, only the Priesthood.

I agree. Yet God called it new. The reason why it is introduced that way is because we can’t get it together as a whole. So it is new for most.

 

[Studyman]

I agree. Yet God called it new. The reason why it is introduced that way is because we can’t get it together as a whole. So it is new for most.

Certainly the change in the Priesthood was a huge deal for most as you say. Even though it was Prophesied, the mainstream preachers of their time didn't teach it, as all of their fame, power and wealth was founded on the Priesthood "After the Order of Aaron". Great point, it was certainly New to most.

 

[expos4ever]

1 John 3:4 states "sin IS transgression of the LAW" KJV and we have over a dozen other translations that agree with KJV on that.

That includes EXB (Expanded Bible) stating that this is the same as (or included in) the more general statement "sin is lawlessness".

1 John 3:4 EXB --The person [L Everyone] who ·sins [commits sin] ·breaks God’s law [commits lawlessness/iniquity; C  referring to the false teachers; 2:19–20]. Yes, sin is ·living against God’s law [lawlessness; iniquity].(EXB). So "yeah" - not "Just KJV"​

Fair enough, but readers need to know that, based on Biblegateway at least, the majority of translations do not have specificity to the Law of Moses. And that includes the highly respected NASB.

​

Some other translations render it "sin is lawlessness" which is the more general form (like saying "that is a square" vs "That is a rectangle" where square would of course - also qualify since it is also a rectangle).

Not sure exactly what you are saying, but I suggest the relevant way to use this metaphor is to saw "lawlessness" is a general term, just like a rectangle is a general term for 4 sided figures with 90 degree angles; by contrast, the concept of "lawlessness with respect to the Law of Moses" is a particular form of lawlessness, just as a square is a particular kind of rectangle. But, just as a you can have a rectangle that is not a square, you can have lawlessness that is not specific to the Law of Moses.

They are technically also correct since their broader term does included the more narrow one we see in over a dozen translations.

This is misleading. The bald, obvious fact is that is one can indeed be lawless without any reference to the Law of Moses whatsoever. If I violate the parking laws where I live, I am lawless in a sense that is entirely decoupled from the Law of Moses.

This post is not an either-or argument. I am just pointing out that the reason for over a dozen translations using the much more specific "transgression of the Law" has to do with the context of 1 John. And as we know - Greek is a high-context language.

I agree that if context does indeed justify the narrower reading, then you would have a point. But I see no contextual argument here or elsewhere to this effect.

But in 1 John the statement is more specific than merely "lawlessness" as over a dozen translations confirm - because the context for 1 John 3 is 1 John 2 "Keep His Commandments" and 1 John 5:3 "this is the LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments".

The obvious problem here is that you appear to simply assume that the category "His commandments" necessarily includes the Law of Moses. But unless you are going to say that God is incapable of repealing the Law of Moses, there is absolutely no necessity at all to conclude that "His commandments" include the Law of Moses.

So then right action in 1 John is "keep His Commandments" where "He" -- is God. " -- in both 1 John 2 and 1 John 5. And that is contrasted with wrong action is "transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4 . The contrast is helpful in finding the most accurate rendering of the term.

As per the above, this is an unjustified conclusion. At least based on what you have said so far.

And that LAW includes the one where as Paul says - "the first commandment with a promise - is Honor your Father and Mother" Eph 6:2

Paul (or whoever wrote Ephesians) is clearly affirming the content of a particular component of the Law of Moses - no one can deny this. But - and you guys make this mistake all the time - this text from Ephesians most certainly does not support the argument that we are still subject to the Law of Moses. Suppose a new country is formed and they decide to adopt the principle that murder is a crime from American Law. Does that all American Law applies in this new country? Of course not! All we can conclude from Eph 6:2 is that Paul affirms a particular commandment from the Law of Moses.

But even here, we need to be careful and interpret this in terms of what Paul says more broadly. In Romans 7, he says we are not to look to the "letter" of the law but to live according to the guidance of the Spirit. Look at what Paul actually writes:

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise),...

Paul tells us why to obey our parents - "because this is right". And something can, repeat can, be judged as being "right" without reference to the Law of Moses if, repeat if, we have another moral compass. And is there another moral compass that has superseded the Law? Let Paul speak:

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 [h]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

 

[BobRyan]

Fair enough, but readers need to know that, based on Biblegateway at least, the majority of translations do not have specificity to the Law of Moses. And that includes the highly respected NASB.

And yet - over a DOZEN do have that stated clearly. So we are free to affirm their statement "Sin IS transgression of the Law'.

What is more - we need not imagine that this is a contradiction to "Sin is lawlessness" since clearly transgression of the LAW is a form of lawlessness.

What is more - the book ITSELF is specific to the context "THE Commandments of God" in 1 John 5:3 and in 1 John 2.

Not sure exactly what you are saying, but I suggest the relevant way to use this metaphor is to saw "lawlessness" is a general term, just like a rectangle is a general term for 4 sided figures with 90 degree angles; by contrast, the concept of "lawlessness with respect to the Law of Moses" is a particular form of lawlessness

Agreed, and ALL translations agree that - that particular concept is indeed in context for the book of 1 John as we see in 1 John 5:3 and in 1 John 2.

This is misleading. The bald, obvious fact is that is one can indeed be lawless without any reference to the Law of Moses

The bald obvious fact is that the book of 1 John very specifically specifies the very point of the "Commandments of God" IN the text.

3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

No wonder over a dozen Bible translations emphasize that detail in 1 John 3:4 as the negative contrast to the the positive statement in 1 John 5:3

I agree that if context does indeed justify the narrower reading, then you would have a point.

Me "and over a dozen Bible translations" note that exegesis requires the context of the entire book not just a single sentence in it lifted out of context. Turns out 1 John 5:3 is the same author in the same book addressing the positive case as opposed to the 1 John 3:4 negative one.

But I see no contextual argument here

You have free will you are free to not see as much as you feel it is necessary for you not to see.

The obvious problem here is that you appear to simply assume that the category "His commandments" necessarily includes the Law of Moses.

Paul makes it clear that it does that very things in Eph 6:2
James makes it clear that it does that very thing in James 2.

Paul (or whoever wrote Ephesians) is clearly affirming the content of a particular component of the Law of Moses - no one can deny this

In fact he makes a statement that is only true in the contest of THE TEN where "Honor your father and mother is the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2.

No wonder Bible scholarship in almost all Christian denominations affirms the TEN as included in the moral law of God.
No wonder Deut 5:22 says God "Spoke and wrote those TEN commandments..and added NO MORE"

. But - and you guys make this mistake all the time - this text from Ephesians most certainly does not support the argument that we are still subject to the Law of Moses.

Christ affirms that very thing in Mark 7:6-13 and in Matt 19.
Paul affirms that very thing in Rom 13
Paul affirms that very thing in Rom 7.
John affirms it in 1 John 5:3

Suppose a new country is formed and they decide to adopt the principle that murder is a crime from American Law. Does that all American Law applies in this new country?

If the new country quotes the Bill of rights and says that a certain right exists for their citizens since it is listed in that Bill of rights as the first right with a certain kind of benefit as listed in that document (the "Bill of Rights" group of amendments) - then they are appealing to the Bill of rights as if it has authority.

 

[Dahveed]

What God are you speaking about Bob? The God of the Holy Scriptures has always been a God of Mercy?

Why did Moses have to go up in the hopes of gaining their forgiveness????? Because there was no Provision for atonement

Because they are a perverse generation, Children in whom is no faith. Deut 32:20

Ex. 19: 5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

For you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own peculiar people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy. 1 Peter 2:9-10

 

[Bob S]

No -- only saved people of OT and NT are under it. Everyone else is under the obey-and-live OC of Gal 3 -just as Paul says in Rom 3:19-20

Absolutely false Bob.
21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and ALL are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Rom 3:21-28

The old covenant given to those at Sinai ended at Calvary. Jesus new covenant not only includes Judah and Israel it includes all mankind. It is up to all mankind to accept the new covenant just as it was for Israelites to accept the old one. Those who do not accept the new covenant are subject to the will of Jesus and are covenant less.

 

[Studyman]

Because they are a perverse generation, Children in whom is no faith. Deut 32:20

1 Cor. 10: 6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

For you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own peculiar people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy. 1 Peter 2:9-10

Ex. 19: 5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

Luke 13: 3 I (The Christ of the Bible) tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

 

[Bob S]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we actually knew what is meant in 1Jn5:3 "this is the LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments"? Could it possibly mean every command given to Israel at Sinai. Is that what God expects of us. Are we sinning because we wear the clothes we do (blended material)? Does God expect us to not cut our sideburns? Then what about all the Levitical laws? Should we be building a Temple with compartments and we would have to somehow find the stones God wrote on so they would be in the most Holy. Those are a few of the commands God has given to man.

Well, John has great news for all to see. All the commands mentioned above were part of a covenant that ended when the new covenant was ratified at Calvary with Jesus own blood. John tells us how to belong to the TRUTH and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence: 20 If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. 21 Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22 and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. 23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24 The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.

You see God didn't leave mankind lawless when He ended the Sinai covenant at Calvary. Sin is when we turn our backs on Jesus and when we refuse to love our fellow man as Jesus commanded. If we would only love ourselves and others as Jesus loves us, we truly would not sin.

 

[Dahveed]

1 Cor. 10: 6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

For no temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man.
But God is faithful [to His Word He can be trusted] to provide the way out and strengthen you. 1 Cor 10:13

Luke 13: 3 I (The Christ of the Bible) tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

You're called to repent if you're barking up the wrong tree, relying on flesh. A man reaps what he sows.

But if you rely on the Spirit of God, you will reap everlasting life in our Lord Jesus Christ.
God is faithful, who has called you into fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. 1 Cor 1:9

 

[freeinhim3]

1 John 3:4 states "sin IS transgression of the LAW" KJV and we have over a dozen other translations that agree with KJV on that.

That includes EXB (Expanded Bible) stating that this is the same as (or included in) the more general statement "sin is lawlessness".

1 John 3:4 EXB --The person [L Everyone] who ·sins [commits sin] ·breaks God’s law [commits lawlessness/iniquity; C  referring to the false teachers; 2:19–20]. Yes, sin is ·living against God’s law [lawlessness; iniquity].(EXB). So "yeah" - not "Just KJV"​

​

Some other translations render it "sin is lawlessness" which is the more general form (like saying "that is a square" vs "That is a rectangle" where square would of course - also qualify since it is also a rectangle). They are technically also correct since their broader term does included the more narrow one we see in over a dozen translations. This post is not an either-or argument. I am just pointing out that the reason for over a dozen translations using the much more specific "transgression of the Law" has to do with the context of 1 John. And as we know - Greek is a high-context language.

But in 1 John the statement is more specific than merely "lawlessness" as over a dozen translations confirm - because the context for 1 John 3 is 1 John 2 "Keep His Commandments" and 1 John 5:3 "this is the LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments".

So then right action in 1 John is "keep His Commandments" where "He" -- is God. " -- in both 1 John 2 and 1 John 5. And that is contrasted with wrong action is "transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4 . The contrast is helpful in finding the most accurate rendering of the term.

And that LAW includes the one where as Paul says - "the first commandment with a promise - is Honor your Father and Mother" Eph 6:2

So then John says that Jesus taught "Love Me and KEEP My Commandments" John 14:15
Just as Jesus did in Ex 20:6 "Love Me and KEEP My Commandments"
(Since Paul informs us in Heb 8:6-12 that it is Jesus speaking at Sinai).

No wonder almost all denominations have positions affirming the TEN Commandments as being included in what is called the "moral law of God" written on the heart under the Jer 31:31-34 "New Covenant'

Sin is indeed the transgression of the law, and, as none of us perfectly obey all applicable law, we are all, in that sense sinners

 

[BobRyan]

Sin is indeed the transgression of the law, and, as none of us perfectly obey all applicable law, we are all, in that sense sinners

Indeed "all have sinned" Rom 3:23
But as Romans 6 says - for the born-again, new-creation, new-covenant Christian "Sin shall NOT be master over you.. " and there we also find "do you not know that the one whom you obey is your master"

 

[freeinhim3]

Indeed "all have sinned" Rom 3:23
But as Romans 6 says - for the born-again, new-creation, new-covenant Christian "Sin shall NOT be master over you.. " and there we also find "do you not know that the one whom you obey is your master"

You either commit sin or you are sinless, which is it?

 

[BobRyan]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we actually knew what is meant in 1Jn5:3 "this is the LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments"?

Those that read texts like Mark 7:6-13 and Matt 19 and Eph 6:2 do know what is meant

No wonder Paul says
"what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
where "the first commandment with a promise" is "Honor your father and mother" Eph 6:2

Not nearly as difficult to see what scripture says as some had speculated.

No wonder almost every Christian denomination on planet earth has a statement affirming the TEN Commandments as being included in the LAW of God - the Commandments of God - written on the heart under the NEW Covenant of Jer 31:31-34.

Where Jeremiah and his readers knew that scripture had already said "God spoke these ten commandments from the mountain directly to the people... and He added no more" Deut 5:22.

meaning that of all the commandments also included -- the TEN were most certainly included.

 

[BobRyan]

You either commit sin or you are sinless, which is it?

What does Romans 6 say in your Bible?

IT has the answer

 

[freeinhim3]

What does Romans 6 say in your Bible?

IT has the answer

I asked you if you commit sin or whether you are sinless, for it must be one or the other. Whether you correctly understand the bible is neither here or there. I just asked you concerning your own personal life. I understand your reticence to answer the question