Is a Christian really subject to the OT Law?
- Thread starter Daniel Marsh
- Start date
-
- Tags
- lord's day sabbath sda seventh day
Buzz_B
Well-Known Member
- Oct 15, 2017
- 894
- 161
- 70
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Divorced
I issued you and 'I Agree' on the point that no one can be saved by works alone. Not on your mistake as to what I imply.
But James clearly has told you that neither is anyone saved by faith apart from works. Whether you wish to agree with him is up to you. That is none of my business. But James did also very clearly say, "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." James 2:17
When we study we need to always remember to ask ourselves not only what did the writer say, but also what did the writer not say.
Galatians 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
Perhaps also you should ask your self if love can be love without love works good toward the object of its affection?
Upvote
0
Soyeong
Well-Known Member
- Mar 10, 2015
- 12,433
- 4,604
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Single
In regard to Galatians 5:18, Paul spoke about multiple different categories of law, such as God's Law, the law of sin, and works of law, so it is important to diligently determine which law he was speaking about us not being under. Unless you want to argue that the Spirit is in disagreement with the Father about what conduct we should have, then you should agree that the Law of the Spirit is the same as the Law of the Father, which was given to Moses, so we can easily rule out God's Law from the list of possibilities. Furthermore, in Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us in obedience to the Law and in Romans 8:4-7, those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who have a mind set on the flesh, who refuse to submit to God's Law. In addition, everything that is listed in Galatians 5:19-23 as works of the flesh that are against the Spirit are also against God's Law, while all of the fruits of the Spirit are in accordance with it, so it would make no sense whatsoever to interpret Galatians 5:18 as referring to us not being under God's Law. Rather, Galatians 5:17 speaks about how the desires of the flesh caused us not to do the good that we want to do, which is exactly how Paul described his struggle with the law of sin.
In Roman 7:12-25, Paul said that God's Law is holy, righteous, and good (7:12), that it is the good he delighted in obeying (7:22), and that he served it with his mind (7:25), but contrasted that with the law of sin, which held him captive (7:23), which caused him not to do the good of obeying God's Law that he wanted to do (7:13-20), and which he served with his flesh (7:25). So when we are led by the Spirit we are under God's holy, righteous, and good Law, and not under the law of sin, which hinders us from doing the good of obeying God's Law that we want to do. In Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus summarized the Mosaic Law as being about how to love God and how to love our neighbor, so it precisely is the law of love.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Soyeong
Well-Known Member
- Mar 10, 2015
- 12,433
- 4,604
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Single
If you believe that God's Law was given to reveal what sin is and that Gentiles are required to refrain from doing what God has revealed to be sin, then you should therefore believe that Gentiles are required to obey God's Law. It would make no sense to say that now that the Law has convicted us of our sin, brought us to Christ, and we are led by the Spirit, that we can now go back to doing any of the things that the Law convicted us of doing. Rather, the Spirit has the role of leading us in obedience to the Law (Ezekiel 36:26-27). In Romans 8:4-7, those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with that who have a carnal mind, who refuse to submit to God's Law. In Galatians 5:19-23, everything listed as carnal works that are against the Spirit are also against the Law, while all of the fruits of the Spirit are in accordance with it. The Spirit is not in disagreement with the Father about what conduct we should have, so the Law of the Spirit is the same as the Law of the Father, which was given to Moses.
In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith in one of the weightier matters of the Law, and in 1 John 5:3, to love God is to obey His commands, so the Law brings us to Christ because it primarily there to teach us about him and how to have a relationship with him based on faith and love. Now that Christ has come, we have a superior teacher, but the subject matter is still how to walk in God's ways in obedience to His Law in accordance with the example that Christ taught us to follow by word and by example. There are a number of verses that refer to God's Law as teaching us to walk in God's ways, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Joshua 22:5, Isaiah 2:2-3, Psalms 103:7, and many others, so the Law was primarily given to teach us how to reflect God's attributes in accordance with the fruits of the Spirit. Pointing out where we sin has significance only insofar as it leads us to repent and back to walking in God's ways.
Upvote
0
Soyeong
Well-Known Member
- Mar 10, 2015
- 12,433
- 4,604
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Single
Instructions for how to act in accordance with God's righteousness can't become obsolete without God's righteousness first becoming obsolete. There is nothing that Jesus said in Matthew 5 to indicate that he was speaking about his death, nothing that he said about his death to indicate that he was fulfilling the law through it, and certainly nothing that he said to indicate that he was doing away with God's righteous standard, so there is no good reason to associate these. In Titus 2:11-14, it does not say that Christ gave himself to free us from the Law, but to redeem us from all Lawlessness, so we should not return to the Lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from.
Crosses were never used as a means of disposing of outdated laws, such that they had to legislate new laws to replace the old ones whenever someone was crucified, but rather what was written on crosses was the announcement of the charges against the person being crucified or the violations of the law that they had committed (Matthew 27:37). This fits perfectly with the concept of the charges against us or violations of God's Law that we have committed being nailed to Christ's cross and with him dying in our place to pay the penalty for our sins, but does not at all fit with God doing away with His eternal righteousness or with His instructions for how to act in accordance with it.
If you look at Colossians 2:16 by itself, then it is ambiguous as to when Paul was saying not to let anyone judge them for keeping God's holy days or for not keeping them, but it we look at the context of the views of the people judging them and keep in mind the theme that we must obey God rather than man, then it becomes clear:
Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
Paul would never have described those who were teaching obedience to the holy, righteous, and good commands of God in accordance with the example that Christ set for his followers as taking people captive by philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition and not according to Christ. He went into more details about what these elemental spirits of the world are later in the chapter:
Colossians 2:20-23 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
So the Colossians were keeping God's holy days in obedience to His commands and in accordance with the example Christ set for us to follow, they were being judged by those teach human traditions and precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, and Paul was writing to encourage them not to let any man judge them keep them from obeying God.
In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from God's Law and according to Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that the Father instructed His people to tell that someone was a false prophet was if they taught against obeying what He commanded, so as can be confident that neither Jesus nor any of the Apostles ever did this. In 2 Peter 3:15-17, it says that Paul was difficult to understand, but that those who are ignorant and unstable twist his words to their own destruction and fall into the error of Lawlessness, so again we can be confident that Paul never spoke against anyone obeying any of God's commands, but if you nevertheless think that he did, then you still ought to obey God because God has more authority than Paul and no one has the authority to countermand Him.
Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws and the Bible never describes disobedience to any of God's commands as being moral.
Upvote
0
Soyeong
Well-Known Member
- Mar 10, 2015
- 12,433
- 4,604
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Single
While the Mosaic Law was only addressed to Israel, it was never meant only for them because Israel was given the role by God of being a light to the nations, of blessing them by teaching them to turn from their wicked ways and how to walk in God's ways (Isaiah 2:2-3, Isaiah 49:6, Deuteronomy 4:5-8, Genesis 22:18). There are many other verses that describe the Mosaic Law as being instructions for how to walk in God's ways, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Joshua 22:5, and Psalms 103:7, so it was not given as instructions for how to live as a Jew, but as instructions to God's followers for how to reflect His attributes. There was a mixed multitude that went up out of Egypt with them (Exodus 12:38) and Israel was inclusive of the foreigners (Joshua 8:33), so Israel has always included righteous Gentiles who have affiliated themselves with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and who walk in His ways.
Upvote
0
Soyeong
Well-Known Member
- Mar 10, 2015
- 12,433
- 4,604
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Single
The Bible does not make any distinction between moral and non-moral laws and nowhere does it describe someone's disobedience to any of God's commands as being moral. Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of His laws are inherently moral laws and it is always immoral to disobey any of His commands.
Upvote
0
Soyeong
Well-Known Member
- Mar 10, 2015
- 12,433
- 4,604
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Single
Hello,
Is it possible for someone to follow of Christ by rejecting the Law that he followed and taught his followers to follow by word and by example?
Jesus was sinless, so he set a perfect example of how to walk in obedience to God's Law, and as his followers, we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22), to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:3-6), to be imitators of him (1 Corinthians 11:1), and that our sanctification is about being made to be like him (1 John 3:2). All throughout the Bible, God wanted His people to repent and return to obedience to His Law and Jesus began his ministry with the same Gospel message (Matthew 4:17, 23), so can you really not see how absurd it is to interpret Paul in Galatians as saying that if we believe the Gospel message, repent and turn to back to obedience to God's commands, and seek by faith to follow the Law that Christ taught his followers to obey by word and by example, then we make Christ of no value to us? Not only have you made the colossal error of interpreting Paul as teaching against obeying God, you have compounded your error by then choosing to follow what you think Paul said instead of what God said, as though Paul had more authority than God. We must obey God rather than man and should let no man keep us from obeying God, even Paul if you think that was what he was doing.
Your error stems from the fact that you have not distinguished between what was said about God's Law and about man-made works of law because Paul only spoke against obeying works of law and never spoke against obeying God. While God did require Gentiles to who were part of Abraham's household to become circumcised (Genesis 17:27) or if they wanted to eat of the Passover lamb (Exodus 12:48), God did not require all Gentiles to become circumcised. Furthermore, while God did require all Jews to become circumcised, not even Jews were required to do so in order to become saved, so the problem in Acts 15 and Galatians that by trying to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved they were using circumcision for a man-made purpose that was actually contrary to the purposes of God.
In Isaiah 45:25, it says that all Israel will be saved, so some Jews mistakenly thought that meant that Gentiles had to become Jewish proselytes in order to become saved, which meant becoming circumcised, which which meant joining the group of people who agreed at Sinai to do everything Moses said (Exodus 20:19). However, Moses delegated this authority on Jethro's advice and by the 1st century those who had this authority passed down to them were referred to as sitting in Moses' seat and it had become a large body of supplementary oral laws, traditions, rulings, and fences, that they taught for how to obey God's Law, which they taught people needed to obey in order to become saved, and which Jesus referred to as placing a heavy burden on the people (Matthew 23:2-4). So by becoming circumcised, Gentiles becoming Jewish proselytes and agreeing to live as Jews according to all of their oral laws and traditions and doing so in order to become saved, and these were the works of law that Paul was arguing against, not against anyone obeying God's Law.
Righteousness does not come by the Law primarily because it was never given for that purpose, so it is that much more true for man-made works of law. Likewise, the need for perfect obedience has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of the Law and of God's character. It makes God out to be some sort of tyrant for punishing us for not meeting an impossible standard or makes Him out to be an unloving Father who gave the Law to essentially put all of His children under a curse, but rather the He said that the Law was given for our own good and to bless us, and I believe Him (Deuteronomy 6:24). The Law itself comes with instructions for what to do when we sin and repentance would pointless because it would already be too late to have perfect obedience, yet every single prophet up to and including Jesus came with a message of repentance, so whether we continue to practice repentance is the key distinction between keeping the law or not. In Deuteronomy 30:11-14, God said that what He commanded was not too difficult for us, but that His Word was near us, in our hearts and in our mouth so that we can obey it, and Romans 10:4-10 quotes this passage in regard to what our faith says and what it means to submit to Jesus as Lord, so to say that it is too difficult for us to obey the Law is to call God a liar and to deny what our faith says.
Sin is defined as the transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4) and we have not been set free from the Law, but rather we have been set free from sin so that we can be free to live in obedience to the Law. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Christ gave himself to free us from the Law, but to redeem us from all Lawlessness, so we should not return to the Lawlessness that Christ gave himself to redeem us from.
Upvote
0
Joseph Lim
Member
Never did I say that the OT law should be disobeyed and never did I say that Paul's words were greater than Jesus'. Yes I do understand where you're coming from in that I only specifically quoted Paul and that I didn't put emphasis on the topic of obeying the law, in other words obeying God.
Let me clarify what my argument is. Christianity is solely based on Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. Without Christ everything is meaningless. I hope you agree with this point because if you do not, there's no point in discussing anything else. Assuming that you agree, I agree with your words,
Once again, I did not say that you can follow Jesus by rejecting the Law. You are branching off of what I DID NOT say and assuming that I am not aware of your arguments just because I did not mention it. I only said that the greater emphasis should be placed on Jesus rather than the works of the Law because you DO NOT receive salvation through your works but only through faith in Jesus Christ. You have to understand that even in the Old Testament, whether you were a jew or a gentile, the ONLY way to go to heaven is your faith that one day a savior would come to reconcile the broken relationship between God and mankind. Which is why present day Jews still await for a savior while we, Christians, don't.
It is my mistake that I didn't really mention the importance of obeying the Law. In Matthew 3:17 it says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Just like you said, we cannot ignore obeying the Law because Jesus did not necessarily take away the requirement of obeying God's laws. However, what I was trying to get across is that we can try to follow all the OT laws but we will quickly realize that we cannot follow them perfectly due to our sinful nature at our core. So let's just assume that we can go to heaven through your works. Then no one, and I mean NO ONE could go to heaven because no one is perfect. On the other hand, I do believe, while some might disagree, that your faith in Christ alone can get you to heaven. One example being the criminal that was next to Jesus during the Crucifixion who repented at the moment of His death and believed that Jesus Christ is truly the Son of the living God. Notice He only believed but didn't really do anything for the Kingdom. Jesus then told him that the criminal will be with him in paradise (Luke 23:39-43) and until this day we know about this criminal because of his "last minute conversion."
I do put emphasis on following God's laws given to us because a Christian's ultimate goal is not to go to heaven but to glorify God. God sent His one and only Son so that God can once again get all the glory just as in the Garden of Eden. If your goal is to just end up in heaven your reward in heaven will differ from the reward another Christian receives for truly following Jesus through obeying God's laws. At the end of the day though, the bridge that connects us to God is not the law but Jesus Christ. If your obedience to the Law does not stem from your faith in Christ then you are not a follower of Christ but a follower of the Law. That is the only reason why I placed more emphasis on your faith in Jesus Christ.
I only said that Christ died for no purpose if we put our trust in the Law to make us righteous because Christ came to free us from all lawlessness, like you said. I was just confused on your argument saying that I said that Paul's words are above Jesus' words. I believe that your argument is completely flawed. I did not cite any other source than the Bible. I want to make sure you understand that NONE of books in the Bible contradict one another nor is one above another. The Bible is the literal word of God and if you disagree with me on that than I will go the lengths to question what religion you are. If you ONLY believe Jesus' words or even place greater value on words over another solely because of the speaker who says them, then you are saying that you only believe portions of the Bible and that's just absurd. Every word in the Bible is written through a conviction from God meaning that it is from God. Therefore, Paul's words are not any LESS important than Jesus' words.
The main question I was trying to answer is this: "Is a Christian really subject to the OT law?". I said that you are NOT subject to the OT law but your faith in Christ should COMPEL you to obey them. Notice how I put faith in Christ before you obey the law. Think about it like this, your faith will get you to heaven but you obedience to the law will decide your reward in heaven. Logically, you cannot have your reward in heaven if you don't get to heaven. In conclusion, obedience to the law without faith, is meaningless.
Faith > Law.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Well thanks and you can take it back if you like. Here is what I said - "What does matter is one is saved by faith in Jesus alone as all that is required." No where will you ever see me say anything different. Works are not required to receive the free gift. Otherwise it is payment and not a gift. It is not Jesus and .... or faith and works of any kind.I issued you and 'I Agree' on the point that no one can be saved by works alone. Not on your mistake as to what I imply.
But James clearly has told you that neither is anyone saved by faith apart from works. Whether you wish to agree with him is up to you. That is none of my business. But James did also very clearly say, "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." James 2:17
When we study we need to always remember to ask ourselves not only what did the writer say, but also what did the writer not say.
Galatians 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
Perhaps also you should ask your self if love can be love without love works good toward the object of its affection?
What are these good works you seem to think James requires to get or maintain salvation?
Sorry but I do not get your closing statement at all.
bugkiller
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
The issue is not about conduct. The issue is about being required to keep the covenant at least in part that was given to Israel. The Christian has no obligation to any part of the that covenant. If you want to argue about sin, it was before the law, therefore it has nothing to do with the law. The purpose of the law is clearly given in Rom 11:32 -
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
bugkiller
Upvote
0
You are trying to prove because we do not murder we are observing part of the law, the suggesting we should comply with the rest of the law, specifically the 4th commandment. My unregenerate neighbor does not murder. Is he therefore following part of the law given to Israel? How? He will tell you what to do with your religion.
I would contend the Christian does not murder because they comply with Jn 13:34 and LK 6:31. Neither are found in the law given by God thru Moses to Israel alone as Moses indicates.
bugkiller
Upvote
0
The law is obsolete for the Christian -
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane... I Tim 1
Profane is used as an adjective instead of a verb.
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. Rom 7
Here Paul is talking about the 10 Cs by quoting the commandment about coveting. Paul says very clearly we are now delivered from this law. No Paul is not saying we can now covet (sin).
bugkiller
Upvote
0
If I were to think about God by the actions of Israel or any other people, I would not consider God in my life. Who in their right mind would want that? It only adds to one's troubles.
bugkiller
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Soyeong
Well-Known Member
- Mar 10, 2015
- 12,433
- 4,604
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Single
You said, "The whole 6 chapters explains clearly that Jesus came to free us from the law" so I apologize if I misunderstood you, but it sure sounds to me like you were interpreting Paul as speaking against obeying God's Law, and it seems to be very inconsistent with what you just said in your reply, so I hope you see why I misunderstood you. If God commanded His followers to do something and Paul said that Christ freed from having to obey what God commanded, then Paul would be speaking against obeying God, so people who refrained from following what God commanded because of what Paul said would be giving Paul more authority than God.
I agree.
In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law that was of works with a law that was of faith, so works of law are of works, while he said that our faith upholds God's Law (Romans 3:31), so they are not the same thing. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Law, so again God's Law is of faith. However, I will completely agree that we are not saved through our obedience to either God's Law or works of law, but only through faith in Christ, though the same faith that saves us also requires our obedience to God's Law.
So you originally said that Christ came to free us from the law, but now you are saying that Jesus did not necessarily take away the requirement of obeying God's laws, so to me that sounds like you are contradicting your earlier position. I agree that we can't follow God's Law perfectly, but perfection was never the expectation. The Law itself comes with instructions for what to do when we sin and repentance would be pointless because it would already be too late for perfection, yet every single prophet up to and including Jesus came with the message of repentance. Again, in Deuteronomy 30:11-14 and Romans 10:4-10, God said that what he commanded was not too difficult for us, which would not be true if it were pass/fail based on perfection, but rather keeping the law is about continuing to practice repentance when we sin. So no one can go to heaven by obeying the Law primarily because it was never given for that goal in the first place.
In Romans 9:30-10:10, the reason why Israel failed to obtain righteousness was precisely because they had that fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of the Law. They had a zeal for God, but it was not based on knowledge because they did not understand that the righteousness of God comes only through faith in Messiah, so they pursued the Law as through righteousness were by works in an effort to establish their own instead of pursuing the Law as though righteousness were by faith, for a relationship with Christ is the goal of the Law for righteousness for everyone who has faith. In Philippians 3:8, Paul had been outwardly keeping the Law, but without having a focus on growing in his relationship with Christ, so he had been completely missing the whole point and counted it all as rubbish.
Faith is always associated with the willingness to follow God's instructions, such as with every example of saving faith listed in Hebrews 11, so someone can at least be willing to follow God's instructions even if they are physically prevented.
In Matthew 5:16, Jesus said to let our light shine before others, that they may see our good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven, so doing good works in obedience to the Law has always been about glorifying God and about growing in a relationship with Him based on faith and love.
Again, saying Christ came to free us from Lawlessness is the opposite of saying he came to free us from the Law, but it now appears that we are on the same page about a number of issues, so I happy about that. I also agree that everything in the Bible is the Word of God and everything in it is true, but the problem is that many people interpret Paul as speaking against obeying God's Law, which would mean that God spoke against obeying Paul (Deuteronomy 4:2, 13:4-5), so they either need to correct their interpretation of Paul or decide who has the higher authority, and which one to follow.
I completely agree that our faith in Christ should compel us to obey OT Law, so that is what faith looks like, though I'm not sure why you said that we are not subject to God's Law when we are God's servants. In Romans 1:8, it spoke about their faith being reported all over the world and how else do you report someone's faith if not by speaking about the actions that their faith led them to take? That's certainly how Hebrews 11 reported people's faith. In Romans 2:26, the way to tell that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by looking at their obedience to the Law, which is the same way to tell for a Jew (Deuteronomy 30:6).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Joseph Lim
Member
I didn't speak against following the law. I just find it of higher value to base your obedience to the law through your faith in Jesus Christ rather than be concerned about being overwhelmed trying to follow every single law.
Upvote
0
Soyeong
Well-Known Member
- Mar 10, 2015
- 12,433
- 4,604
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Single
In Matthew 11:28-30 and Jeremiah 6:16-19, the Law is described as the good way where we will find rest for our souls, but making it about trying to be good enough rather than about expressing our faith and love would rob our souls of the rest it was intended to give.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
