To What Extent are we Bound by God’s Law?

Davy said:

1 Tim 1:8-11
8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
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, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
KJV


Does that above sound like Apostle Paul believed God's law was done away with under Christ? Obviously not, since it said that "According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust."

Per the Book of Hebrews some things did change per The New Covenant, so we shouldn't think in absolutes about God's laws, like it either still exists or it doesn't exist. In Col.2:14 we are shown Lord Jesus nailed the handwriting of ordinances in God's law to His cross; that doesn't mean all of God's law.

Click to expand...

In Colossians 2:14, it does not refer to any laws being nailed to the cross. There is a difference between these two statements:

1.) You shall not commit murder.

2.) This person has been found guilty of murder.

The first is an example of a law that is for our own good while the second is an example of a handwritten ordinance that was against someone that was nailed to their cross in order to announce why they were being executed. In Matthew 27:37, it says that they put the charge that was against Jesus over his head, so what was nailed to people's crosses was not the laws themselves, but the charge that was against them. This serves as a perfect analogy for the list of our violations of God's law being nailed to Christ's cross and with him dying in our place to pay the penalty for our sins, but has nothing to do with ending any of God's laws, especially because they are all eternal (Psalms 119:160). In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to end any laws, but in order to redeem us from all lawlessness, so saying that there were any laws nailed to the cross undermines what he accomplished on the cross. The Greek word "dogma" means "edict, ordinance, or decree" and is never used by the Bible to refer to God's law.

For those in Christ, we are to 'walk' by The Spirit, and by doing that we become dead to the law. That's what Apostle Paul was saying in Galatians 5, not that God's laws are dead.

As long as there are brethren that won't open up their Bible and study for theirselves to verify what they're being taught at the pulpit, then the hireling that creeps in will make them believe whatever junk necessary to steal their money.

Click to expand...

In Romans 8:4-7, those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who have minds set on the flesh who refuse to submit to God's law, so we do not become dead to God's law by walking in the Spirit, but rather by doing that we become dead to the law of sin.

SkyWriting said:

We are released from written law when we
Do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
That's it.
What Does the Bible Say About The Golden Rule?

Click to expand...

The greatest two commandments are a lot easier said than done, so thankfully God gave us all of the other written laws to paint us a picture of what that looks like.

hedrick said:

We know some things about Jesus' relationship with the Law:

• He cited the OT as authoritative, but in many cases followed what he regarded as the intent and not the letter. Mat 5 is a good example, as he replaces the words of several commandments with intepretations that represent the intent. See particularly Mat 19:8
• While he didn't normally preach specifically to Gentiles, he interacted with them from time to time. He never suggested that they needed to become Jews or obey Jewish laws.

Paul had to deal with how to handle Jewish converts to Christianity. Jesus never dealt with the specific issue, but I would suggest that saying they weren't bound by Jewish law is consistent with how he treated Gentiles.

Remember that Mat 5:17 is the prolog to a set of sayings where he effectively replaced the written words. Thus I would suggest that the Law which will never pass away might not be the written Law, but God's actual intended plan for us. In that case not abolishing it but fulfilling it means that the reinterpretations that follow are fulfilling God's original intention by qualifying the written law, and that rather than abolishing it, as one might first think overruling the written words was doing, it was fulfilling God's actual law.

Click to expand...

Whenever Jesus directly quoted from Scripture, he preceded by saying "it is written", but when he was quoting from what the people of his day had heard being said, he preceded it by saying "you have heard that it was said", so his emphasis on the different form of communication is important. So he was not making changes to what was written, but was fulfilling the law by correcting what was wrongly being taught about what was written and by teaching how to correctly understand the law as it was originally intended.

In Matthew 19:8, it is important to keep in mind that he was answering the question that was asked of him in verse 3 about whether a man was permitted to divorce his wife for any reason. It was this that was not so from the beginning. In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add or subtract from the law, so Jesus did not do that. Jesus taught obedience to the Mosaic Law both by word and by example and Gentiles are free to look at what he taught and to decide whether or not to become his follower, but Gentiles can't follow him while refusing to follow what he taught.

A.ModerateOne said:

To clarify my view of "moral law", I see two understandings by people. Some say the Ten Commandments are the moral law; but I insist they contain the moral law. The moral law in substance existed from creation forward, God's law, that does not change. In the Law of Moses, the moral law is given in a particular way that was applied to Israel. So when I insist the entire Law of Moses, the Old Covenant, was abolished, including the Ten Commandments; I do NOT mean the substance of moral law that has existed since creation and still exists in Christ's law today. I am not antinomian nor a dispensationalist.

Click to expand...

God's nature is eternal, so all of God's laws for how to testify about God's nature are therefore also eternal (Psalms 119:160), so all of the Mosaic Law has existed from creation forward and does not change. In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God commanded him without departing from it, so all of the Mosaic Law is God's eternal law. At no point does the Bible suggest that it can ever be moral to disobey God. 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. Christ taught obedience to the Mosaic Law both by word and by example, so it is the Law of Christ.

From Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, a 19th century German Lutheran Greek scholar:

Click to expand...

"Ephesians 2:15. τὴν ἔχθραν] This, still included in dependence upon λύσας, is now the μεσότοιχον broken down by Christ: (namely) the enmity. It is, after the example of Theodoret (comp. τινές in Chrysostom), understood by the majority (including Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Clarius, Grotius, Calovius, Morus, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Meier, Holzhausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette) of the Mosaic law as the cause of the enmity between Jew and Gentile, in which case the moral law is by some included, by others excluded. But, in accordance with Ephesians 2:14, the reader is led to nothing else than the opposite of εἰρήνη, i.e. to the abstract enmity; and in the sequel, indeed, the abolition of the law is very definitely distinguished from the destruction of the enmity (as means from end). Hence the only mode of taking it, in harmony with the word itself and with the context, is: the enmity which existed between Jews and Gentiles, comp. Ephesians 2:16."
Ephesians 2 - Heinrich Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

Click to expand...

I used to interpret Ephesians 2:15 as referring to the Mosaic Law, so I can certainly see why many people do that, but I think that it stems from a bias against the Mosaic Law that leads us to systematically interpret verses as being against the Mosaic Law. I decided to try reading the NT as though its authors were in complete agreement with the extremely positive view of the Mosaic Law that is expressed in the Psalms and found that it makes much more sense and has much more continuity. I recognize that this is also a form of bias, though I think it is far more reasonable to consider those who consider the Psalms to be Scripture to be in agreement with them than to impose a negative view of the Mosaic Law onto them onto them that is incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture.

In any case, the fact remains that the Mosaic Law was given as a light and a blessing to nations (Isaiah 2:2-3, 49:6), not as a dividing wall of hostility. Instructions for how to testify about God's nature can't be abolished without abolishing Christ, who is the exact expression of God's nature (Hebrews 1:3). Those who reject the Mosaic Law are rejecting the nature of who God has revealed Christ to be.

From the Appendix to the First London Confession of Faith Revised Edition 1646

Click to expand...

"IX. Though we that believe in Christ, be not under the law, but under grace, Rom.6:14; yet we know that we are not lawless, or left to live without a rule; "not without law to God, but under law to Christ," 1 Cor.9:21. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is a law, or commanding rule unto us; whereby, and in obedience whereunto, we are taught to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world, Titus 2:11,12; the directions of Christ in His evangelical word guiding us unto, and in this sober, righteous, and godly walking, 1 Tim.1:10,11."

Click to expand...

In Romans 6:14, it describes the law that we are not under as being a law where sin had dominion over us, which does not describe the Mosaic Law, which is a law where holiness, righteousness, and goodness have dominion over us (Romans 7:12), but rather it is the law of sin where sin had dominion over us. In Romans 6:15, because under grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, and sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4), so we are still under God's law. It is contradictory to say that you are not under God's law and also that you are not without law to God, but rather in 1 Corinthian 9:21, Paul used a parallel statement to equate the Mosaic Law with the Law of Christ. Christ taught obedience to the Mosaic Law both by word and by example, so it would make sense to think that that the Law of Christ was something that that the law that Christ taught, which was given to testify about him. Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is. Likewise, the Mosaic Law is God's instructions for how the Israelites knew how to live soberly, righteous, and godly in this present world.

"X. Though we be not now sent to the law as it was in the hand of Moses, to be commanded thereby, yet Christ in His Gospel teacheth and commandeth us to walk in the same way of righteousness and holiness that God by Moses did command the lsraelites to walk in, all the commandments of the Second Table being still delivered unto us by Christ, and all the commandments of the First Table also (as touching the life and spirit of them) in this epitome or brief sum, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, etc.," Matt.22:37,38,39,40; Rom.13:8,9,10."
An Appendix to a Confession of Faith, 1646 | The Reformed Reader

Click to expand...

All of the laws that God has given are examples of how to love God and our neighbor, which is why Jesus said that those are the greatest two commandments and that all of the other commandments hang on them, so they are all connected. The sum is inclusive of all of its parts, so if someone's obedience to the greatest two commandments is not inclusive of God's other commandments, then they are not treating the greatest two as being the sum of the other commandments.

newton3005 said:

To what extent are we bound by the law? Is there a contradiction in the passages of the New Testament? Lord Jesus in Matthew 5:17-19 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. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Jesus says he comes not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. We might infer that since Jesus does not intend to abolish the Law, the Law still exists. It may not be needed by Jesus since he has fulfilled the Law, so who does the Law exist for? Verse 19 makes it plain that exists for the rest of us...Those of us who disregard the least of the “commandments,” will be called least into the Kingdom of Heaven.

So why does Romans 7:6 say that we are “released from the Law”? Where is the consistency between that, and Matthew 5:17-19? Is Matthew 5:19 a key? There, Jesus seems to infer that when all is accomplished, there will no longer be any need for the Law. But a person’s relationship with God is an individual matter. Because of that, the Law cannot be swept away on a wholesale basis, but according to individual by individual.
....

Click to expand...

Keep studying God's Word, there's more written that explains this.

I noticed you didn't mention what Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 1 and Galatians 5 about this. Paul said the law is good if used lawfully (i.e., legitimately). He said the law was not made for the righteous, but for the sinner, unholy and profane, the ungodly. He names specific sins from the law, and that is New Testament doctrine, so what gives?

In Romans 7 Paul declares that the law is spiritual, holy and good. He also called it "the law of God after the inward man". In Hebrews 8 & 10, God declared He would write His laws in our hearts and minds per the New Covenant.

The matter is simple. God's law is still effect for those who break it. This is Paul's Message in Galatians 5, as he says IF... we walk by The Spirit, then we won't be doing anything that is against God's laws. It is when we walk by our 'flesh' that sin and breaking God's laws comes in. And Apostle John defined sin as the transgression of the law.

Lord Jesus nailed the handwriting in ordinances upon His cross, so He did do away with blood rituals, ceremonial rituals requiring a priest, etc., religious ordinances in the law. But He did not do away with many laws that deal with sins of the flesh, like murder, theft, lying, witchcraft, sodomy, perjury, etc. (see 1 Timothy 1 and Galatians 5).

What if we do slip up with following our flesh, and break one of God's laws? We are to repent to Lord Jesus, asking Him forgiveness, and make a change (1 John 1). And hopefully, it won't be a transgression that puts us in prison or worse. Obviously Paul was not speaking of slips up involving sins unto death in Romans 7.