no longer under the law?

Soyeong · Apr 4, 2021

parousia70 said:
Well you’re in a bit of a pickle then, because over half of the 600+ Specific laws in the Law of Moses are impossible to adhere to today, therefore no one does. Not even one person alive today follows the law of Moses.
Not even one.

Which would be a huge bummer if following the Law of Moses is indeed a requirement for salvation.
Good thing it’s not.

Even when the law was first given to Moses, there was not a single person who was required to keep all 600+ laws, and not even Jesus kept the laws in regard to giving birth or to having a period. The Mosaic Law contained instructions for what the people were to do once they had entered the land, which was given to the people before they had entered it, so there is nothing wrong with not following laws that can't currently be obeyed. Likewise, when Israel was in exile in Babylon the condition for their return to the land was to first return to obedience to the Mosaic Law, which required them to have access to the temple, which they didn't have access to while they were in exile, so when there are laws that can't currently be obeyed, we should nevertheless be faithful to obey as much as we can.

In Romans 2:13, Paul said that only doers of the Mosaic Law will be justified, so choosing to obey it through faith is a requirement for justification, but not in order to earn it. Likewise, in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who were workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the Mosaic Law is God's instructions for how to know Christ, and knowing Christ is a requirement for salvation.

Soyeong · Apr 4, 2021

Butterball1 said:
Christ took the OT law of Moses out of the way including the 10 commandments. Yet Christ in His NT reiterated 9 of the 10 commandments leaving out remembering the Sabbath day, hence Christians are not required to remember the Sabbath as the Jews under the OT law. Therefore lying, stealing, idolatry, adultery, etc are morally wrong NOT because Moses says so in the 10 commandments but because Christ says so in the NT.
Christians/Christianity is guided by the NT, not the OT. OT law regulated the religion of Judaism and the NT regulates Christianity so the Christian must look to the NT. Romans 7:1-6 Paul makes it sinful for the Christian to return back to the OT and try and keep it. He compares it to an adulteress woman married to 2 men at the same time. The Christian is married to Christ and His NT gospel but if the Christian also goes back to keep any of the OT law of Moses then he is marrying himself to two laws (Moses & Christ) committing spiritual adultery against Christ. So when Christ died He took the OT law out of the way freeing us from that law so we can be married to His NT law and therefore not commit spiritual adutlery.

Jesus was not in disagreement with the Father about which laws we should follow, so we shouldn't need him to have reiterated anything in order for us to know that we should still obey the Father, and he would have still taught full obedience to the Mosaic Law by example even if he had reiterated nothing. In John 14:24, he said that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father, so he did not depart from what the Father had taught.

In Romans 7:22-23, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Mosaic Law, but contrasted that with the law of sin, which held him captive. If Romans 7:4-6 were speaking about the Mosaic Law, then that would mean that Paul delighted in stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death and that he delighted in being held captive, which is absurd, but rather it is the law of sin that he described as holding him captive. In Romans 7:1-3, at no point in Paul's example from the law was the woman set free from needing to obey the Mosaic Law, and if she were to get married to another husband after the death of her husband, then she would once again be required to refrain from living with another man while her husband was still alive, so there is nothing in these verses that least to the conclusion that in the same way we have been set free from needing to obey the Mosaic Law. In Romans 6:19-23, no longer presenting ourselves as slaves to impurity, lawlessness, and sin is contrasted with now presenting ourselves as slaves to God and to righteousness leading to sanctification, and the goal of sanctification is eternal life in Christ, which is the gift of God. So obedience to the Mosaic Law is itself part of the content of God's gift of eternal life, so there is no sense in interpreting Romans 7:1-6 as rejecting the gift of God and going back to living in sin. It is absurd to think that we need to reject God's laws for how to bear fruit for Him in order to bear fruit for him and to think that it is we commit spiritual adultery with Christ by repenting and following what he taught.

Butterball1 · Apr 5, 2021

Soyeong said:
Jesus was not in disagreement with the Father about which laws we should follow, so we shouldn't need him to have reiterated anything in order for us to know that we should still obey the Father, and he would have still taught full obedience to the Mosaic Law by example even if he had reiterated nothing. In John 14:24, he said that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father, so he did not depart from what the Father had taught.

In Romans 7:22-23, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Mosaic Law, but contrasted that with the law of sin, which held him captive. If Romans 7:4-6 were speaking about the Mosaic Law, then that would mean that Paul delighted in stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death and that he delighted in being held captive, which is absurd, but rather it is the law of sin that he described as holding him captive. In Romans 7:1-3, at no point in Paul's example from the law was the woman set free from needing to obey the Mosaic Law, and if she were to get married to another husband after the death of her husband, then she would once again be required to refrain from living with another man while her husband was still alive, so there is nothing in these verses that least to the conclusion that in the same way we have been set free from needing to obey the Mosaic Law. In Romans 6:19-23, no longer presenting ourselves as slaves to impurity, lawlessness, and sin is contrasted with now presenting ourselves as slaves to God and to righteousness leading to sanctification, and the goal of sanctification is eternal life in Christ, which is the gift of God. So obedience to the Mosaic Law is itself part of the content of God's gift of eternal life, so there is no sense in interpreting Romans 7:1-6 as rejecting the gift of God and going back to living in sin. It is absurd to think that we need to reject God's laws for how to bear fruit for Him in order to bear fruit for him and to think that it is we commit spiritual adultery with Christ by repenting and following what he taught.

Jesus did remove al the OT law at His death, Eph 2:14-15, removing the 10 commandments with His on NT law. Matthew 5:27-28 aultery is not wrong because the 10 commandments says its wrong but because Christ says it's wrong. The OT condemned the physical act of adultery but Christ went further condemning the thoughts of lusting in the heart as much as the overt act of adultery.

1 Corintinas 9:21 Paul was under Christ's NT law not under the law of Moses.

Romans 7:1-6 Paul condemned going back to the OT law and keeping it as he condemned those in Galatian who had left the NT gospel (Galatians 1:6-7) going back to the OT law. Galatians 2:21 if the OT law could make one right with God, then Christ died in vain. Yet the OT law could not make one right before God (Hebrews 10:1-4). The OT law was a 'yoke of bondage' Galatians 5:21 for it could not free one from sin. Those Galatians who left the NT left the freedom the NT brings in Christ and returned to the yolk of bondage of the OT which required perfect, flawless law keeping of the whole law (Galatians 5:3). Jst one sin would bring the curse of the OT law upon one (Galatians 3:10). Since the Jew could not keep the OT law perfectly therefore cuold not be justified by that hence Paul says 'no man is justified by the law in the sight of God', (Galatians 3:11). Therefore for the Christian to leave the NT and go back to the OT law looking for justication is sinful (Romans 7:1-6) but also the OT law requires perfect, flawless law keeping to the WHOLE law (not just the 10 commandments) else one brings the curse of that OT law upon himself. What the Christian does, he must find justification for it in the NT.

Andrewn · Apr 5, 2021

Butterball1 said:
Therefore for the Christian to leave the NT and go back to the OT law looking for justication is sinful (Romans 7:1-6) but also the OT law requires perfect, flawless law keeping to the WHOLE law (not just the 10 commandments) else one brings the curse of that OT law upon himself. What the Christian does, he must find justification for it in the NT.

My take is that we're all in agreement about this and that the problem lurking behind this discussion is the concept of "Inerrancy."

I suspect you believe that either the Torah is to be kept completely and verbatim, which is obviously ridiculous, or to be ignored and abrogated, which is not really a biblical approach as @Soyeong has shown.

But the matter is not black or white. The Christian approach is to interpret the OT in light of the NT. Using this approach St Augustine wrote:

"Surely no-one will doubt that God’s law was necessary, not just for the people of that time [the Old Testament], but is also necessary for us today, for the right ordering of our life. True enough, Christ took away from us that crushing yoke of many ceremonies, so that we are not circumcised according to the flesh, we do not sacrifice victims from the cattle, we do not rest even from necessary works on the Sabbath (although we keep the pattern of the seven day week), and other such things. We keep these laws in a spiritual sense; the shadowy symbols have been removed and we see them in the light of the realities they signified…[yet] who can say that Christians ought not to keep the commands which tell us to serve the one God with religious obedience, not to worship an idol, not to take the Lord’s name in vain, to honour one’s parents, not to commit adulteries, murders, thefts, false witness, not to covet another man’s wife or anything at all that belongs to another? Who is so ungodly as to say that he does not keep those precepts of the law, because he is a Christian and stands not under the law, but under grace?[1]"

Ezra Institute: Home page

Love Others · Apr 5, 2021

Psalm 27 · Apr 5, 2021

Lifelong_sinner said:
hello all. so i just got back from talking to a preacher up the street from me. i have been questioning salvation, and i have to say that this preacher really confused me. so i asked him a few questions, like are backsliders christian? and is addiction a sin? he said yes to both. but the one thing that bothered me is he brought up being under the law. his belief was that christians are not under the law, or ten commandments, and that the only commandments to follow are 1. love the Lord thy God with all your heart, mind, and soul. and 2. love they neighbor as thy self. he said that if you followed those 2 commandments, all the other laws would be followed as a result of love.

am i wrong to think this didnt sound right?????

That’s what Jesus said, so must be right, right?

Matthew 22:40
“On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Soyeong · Apr 5, 2021

Paul spoke about multiple different categories of law, such as the Law of God, the law of sin, and works of the law, so you need to justify which law we should interpret Paul as referring to because you are guaranteed to misunderstand him if you assume that he was always speaking about the Law of God rather than just assuming that he was always speaking about God's law.

For example, in Romans 3:27-31, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, so works of the law are of works, while he said in 3:31 that our faith upholds the Law of God, so it is the law of faith. Christ set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22), so Paul's problem in Galatians was not with those who were teaching Gentiles how to obey the Law of Moses as if following Christ was somehow a negative thing, but rather his problem was with those who were wanting to require Gentiles to obey their works of the law in order to become justified.

In Romans 7:21-25, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God and served it with his mind, but contrasted that with the law of sin, which he served with his flesh, and Paul should not be interpreted being in opposition to God and as speaking against obeying a law that he delighted in obeying, so I've made the case in my previous post for why Romans 7:4-6 should be interpreted as referring to the law of sin rather than the Law of God.

Butterball1 said:
Jesus did remove al the OT law at His death, Eph 2:14-15, removing the 10 commandments with His on NT law.

All of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160), but Ephesians 2:14-15 is referring to a law that is not eternal, therefore it is not referring to any of God's laws. God did not make any mistakes when He gave the law, so he had no need to remove His own laws. Furthermore, God did not give any laws for the purpose of creating a dividing wall of hostility, but rather God's law instructs us to love our neighbor as ourselves, so I'm not seeing any justification for interpreting those verses as referring to the Law of Moses, especially when Jesus specifically said that he came not to abolish the law (Matthew 5:17).

Matthew 5:27-28 aultery is not wrong because the 10 commandments says its wrong but because Christ says it's wrong. The OT condemned the physical act of adultery but Christ went further condemning the thoughts of lusting in the heart as much as the overt act of adultery.

The same Father who gave the law to Moses also sent Jesus, who set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to it, and who did not hypocritically preach something other than what he practiced, so there is no disagreement. Jesus would have still taught full obedience to the Mosaic Law by example, even if he had reiterated nothing, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22), so we do not need him to have reiterated anything in order to know that we should still obey the Father. The command not to look at a woman with lust in our hearts is just the correct application of the 7th and 10th Commandments against adultery and against coveting in our hearts, so Jesus was not teaching anything brand new in disagreement with the Father. In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the Mosaic Law, so Jesus did not do that.

1 Corintinas 9:21 Paul was under Christ's NT law not under the law of Moses.

In 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul said in a parallel statement that he was not outside the Law of God, but under the Law of Christ, so he equated the Law of God with the Law of Christ, and the Law of Moses is the Law of God, so he was affirming that he was under the Law of Moses. God is not in disagreement with Himself about which laws we should follow, so the Law of Christ is the same as the Law of the Spirit and the Law of the Father, which was given to Moses. Christ spent his ministry teaching how to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example, so it wouldn't make sense to think that the Law of Christ was something other than what Christ taught.

Romans 7:1-6 Paul condemned going back to the OT law and keeping it as he condemned those in Galatian who had left the NT gospel (Galatians 1:6-7) going back to the OT law.

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, so repenting from our disobedience to it is an integral part of the Gospel message, which he prophesied would be proclaimed to all nations (Matthew 24:12-14). In Romans 15:4, Paul said that OT Scripture was written for our instruction and in 15:18-19, his Gospel message involved bringing Gentiles to obedience in word and in deed, so his Gospel was on the same page in regard to teaching repentance from our sins.

Galatians 2:21 if the OT law could make one right with God, then Christ died in vain. Yet the OT law could not make one right before God (Hebrews 10:1-4). The OT law was a 'yoke of bondage' Galatians 5:21 for it could not free one from sin. Those Galatians who left the NT left the freedom the NT brings in Christ and returned to the yolk of bondage of the OT which required perfect, flawless law keeping of the whole law (Galatians 5:3). Jst one sin would bring the curse of the OT law upon one (Galatians 3:10). Since the Jew could not keep the OT law perfectly therefore cuold not be justified by that hence Paul says 'no man is justified by the law in the sight of God', (Galatians 3:11). Therefore for the Christian to leave the NT and go back to the OT law looking for justication is sinful (Romans 7:1-6) but also the OT law requires perfect, flawless law keeping to the WHOLE law (not just the 10 commandments) else one brings the curse of that OT law upon himself. What the Christian does, he must find justification for it in the NT.

We do not earn our righteousness by obeying God's law because it was never given for that reason, but that doesn't mean that we don't need to obey it for the purposes for which it was given. Even if someone managed to live in perfect obedience to the Mosaic Law, they still would not earn their justification because our justification is not something that can be earned as a wage (Romans 4:4-5). Trying to earn our justification has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of why we should obey the Law of Moses.

The reason why God saved the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt was not in order to put them under bondage to His law, but rather it is for freedom that God sets us free (Galatians 5:1), and God's law is a law of freedom (Psalms 119:45). In Psalms 119:142, God's law is truth, and in John 8:31-36, it is sin in transgression of God's law that puts us in bondage, while it is the truth that sets us free. In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people who are zealous for doing good works, so the freedom that we have in Christ is the freedom from sin, not the freedom to sin.

In Galatians 3:10-12, Paul associated a quote from Habakkuk 2:4 with a quote from Leviticus 18:5, so the righteous who are living by faith are the same as those who are living in obedience to the Law of Moses, while no one is justified before God by works of the law because they are not of faith, unlike the Law of Moses. In Isaiah 51:7, the righteous are those on whose heart is the Law of Moses, so the righteous living by faith does not refer to a manner of living that is not in obedience to it.

Butterball1 · Apr 5, 2021

Soyeong said:
Paul spoke about multiple different categories of law, such as the Law of God, the law of sin, and works of the law, so you need to justify which law we should interpret Paul as referring to because you are guaranteed to misunderstand him if you assume that he was always speaking about the Law of God rather than just assuming that he was always speaking about God's law.

For example, in Romans 3:27-31, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, so works of the law are of works, while he said in 3:31 that our faith upholds the Law of God, so it is the law of faith. Christ set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22), so Paul's problem in Galatians was not with those who were teaching Gentiles how to obey the Law of Moses as if following Christ was somehow a negative thing, but rather his problem was with those who were wanting to require Gentiles to obey their works of the law in order to become justified.

In Romans 7:21-25, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God and served it with his mind, but contrasted that with the law of sin, which he served with his flesh, and Paul should not be interpreted being in opposition to God and as speaking against obeying a law that he delighted in obeying, so I've made the case in my previous post for why Romans 7:4-6 should be interpreted as referring to the law of sin rather than the Law of God.

All of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160), but Ephesians 2:14-15 is referring to a law that is not eternal, therefore it is not referring to any of God's laws. God did not make any mistakes when He gave the law, so he had no need to remove His own laws. Furthermore, God did not give any laws for the purpose of creating a dividing wall of hostility, but rather God's law instructs us to love our neighbor as ourselves, so I'm not seeing any justification for interpreting those verses as referring to the Law of Moses, especially when Jesus specifically said that he came not to abolish the law (Matthew 5:17).

The same Father who gave the law to Moses also sent Jesus, who set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to it, and who did not hypocritically preach something other than what he practiced, so there is no disagreement. Jesus would have still taught full obedience to the Mosaic Law by example, even if he had reiterated nothing, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22), so we do not need him to have reiterated anything in order to know that we should still obey the Father. The command not to look at a woman with lust in our hearts is just the correct application of the 7th and 10th Commandments against adultery and against coveting in our hearts, so Jesus was not teaching anything brand new in disagreement with the Father. In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the Mosaic Law, so Jesus did not do that.

In 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul said in a parallel statement that he was not outside the Law of God, but under the Law of Christ, so he equated the Law of God with the Law of Christ, and the Law of Moses is the Law of God, so he was affirming that he was under the Law of Moses. God is not in disagreement with Himself about which laws we should follow, so the Law of Christ is the same as the Law of the Spirit and the Law of the Father, which was given to Moses. Christ spent his ministry teaching how to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example, so it wouldn't make sense to think that the Law of Christ was something other than what Christ taught.

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, so repenting from our disobedience to it is an integral part of the Gospel message, which he prophesied would be proclaimed to all nations (Matthew 24:12-14). In Romans 15:4, Paul said that OT Scripture was written for our instruction and in 15:18-19, his Gospel message involved bringing Gentiles to obedience in word and in deed, so his Gospel was on the same page in regard to teaching repentance from our sins.

We do not earn our righteousness by obeying God's law because it was never given for that reason, but that doesn't mean that we don't need to obey it for the purposes for which it was given. Even if someone managed to live in perfect obedience to the Mosaic Law, they still would not earn their justification because our justification is not something that can be earned as a wage (Romans 4:4-5). Trying to earn our justification has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of why we should obey the Law of Moses.

The reason why God saved the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt was not in order to put them under bondage to His law, but rather it is for freedom that God sets us free (Galatians 5:1), and God's law is a law of freedom (Psalms 119:45). In Psalms 119:142, God's law is truth, and in John 8:31-36, it is sin in transgression of God's law that puts us in bondage, while it is the truth that sets us free. In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people who are zealous for doing good works, so the freedom that we have in Christ is the freedom from sin, not the freedom to sin.

In Galatians 3:10-12, Paul associated a quote from Habakkuk 2:4 with a quote from Leviticus 18:5, so the righteous who are living by faith are the same as those who are living in obedience to the Law of Moses, while no one is justified before God by works of the law because they are not of faith, unlike the Law of Moses. In Isaiah 51:7, the righteous are those on whose heart is the Law of Moses, so the righteous living by faith does not refer to a manner of living that is not in obedience to it.

Yes, Paul made contrasts between the OT and NT law but he was not under the OT law as a Christian but the NT law and condemned those Christians that left the NT law and returned back to the OT law (Galatians 1:6-7). He said of those in Galatia they had "fallen from grace", that being, that had left a system of justification by grace as taught in the NT back to the OT system that required perfect, flawless work in keeping the whole law perectly to be justified.

On another occasion Paul says "circumcision is NOTHING" 1 Corinthians 7:19. The serious implication of these 3 words is far reaching. These words would have been totally offensive to the Jew who refused to give up the OT law, who refused Christ and His NT. The implication is that when a child was born to Hebrew parents the FIRST thing done was circumcision with circumcision representing a sign, a covenant promise that child would be brought up being taught the OT law and keep that OT law. The implication being this; if the beginning step in keeping the OT law (circumcision) is nothing, then the entire OT law is also nothing.

Paul goes on to then say "uncircumcision is NOTHING" meaning being circumcised or uncircumcised is NOTHING, that circimcision or uncircumcison have NO salvific or moral meaning to them. Being a Jew or non-Jew means NOTHING when it comes to NT salvation. Therefore NONE of the OT commands have to be kept, including circumcision, in order to be saved. For there has been a change of law (Hebrews 7:12) from the OT to NT.

Final point on this, under the OT law God commanded circumcision. So when Paul says "circumcision is nothing" does that imply no one has to obey any command of God at all? Of course not for Paul then tells us what matters, that being, "keeping the commandments of God". Again, not having to keep the OT command to be circumcised implies a change in law, a change in God's commands going from OT to the NT and we today are to obey Christ and His NT (Hebrews 5:9; John 14:15).
Galatians 5:6:
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; (so what does avail?) but faith which worketh by love. A "faith that worketh by love" is parallel to "keeping the commands of God" in 1 Cor 7:19.
In Galatians 6:15 Paul says AGAIN
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, (then what avails?) but a new creature". One becomes a new creature in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17) when one obeys the NT gospel and is baptized into Christ. In this baptism there is a circumcision "made without hands" where God cuts away the body of sin, (Colossians 2:11-14). The OT law has NOTHING to do with NT Christianity and how one becomes a new creature in Christ, the OT law does not dictate how the Christian worships God nor how one is saved today.

One cannot earn righteousness from God but one must meet the necessary precondition God's puts upon His free gifts. Obedience to GOd's NT is a necessary precondition that one must meet to be righteous ("obedience UNTO righteousness" - Romans 6:16) and meeting the precondition upon a free gift earns NOTHING.

Paul calls the OT law a "yoke of bondage" (Galatians 5:1) for it required perfect, flawless law keeping of the WHOLE OT (not just the 10 commds.) to be just before God. Yet no Jew (other than Jesus) could keep it perfectly. Therefore the OT law demonstrated to the Jew he must rely on God's grace to be justified rather than relying on his own ability to keep the WHOLE OT law perfectly. Acts 15 there were Judiazing teachers trying to bind the OT law upon Gentile Christian converts and the Apostles met about this issue (Acts of the Apostles 15:1-2) To which Paul said of binding the OT yoke of bondage upon the Gentiles "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" They were not to put the yoke of bondage of the OT law upon the Gentiles, a bondage they nor their Jewish ancestors could bear, for again, that law required flawless law keeping to the WHOLE law for just one sin brings the curse of the OT law upon one.

Soyeong · Apr 5, 2021

Butterball1 said:
Yes, Paul made contrasts between the OT and NT law but he was not under the OT law as a Christian but the NT law and condemned those Christians that left the NT law and returned back to the OT law (Galatians 1:6-7).

Christ set sinless example for us to follow of how to follow the Mosaic Law, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 21:22), so it is absurd to interpret Galatians as Paul saying that followers of Christ shouldn't follow Christ. Christ also 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, so it is also absurd to think that we reject the Gospel of Christ by following the Gospel of Christ. So his problem was not with those teaching obedience to the Mosaic Law, but rather, his problem was with Judaizers who were teaching that Gentiles needed to obey their works of the law in order to become justified.

He said of those in Galatia they had "fallen from grace", that being, that had left a system of justification by grace as taught in the NT back to the OT system that required perfect, flawless work in keeping the whole law perectly to be justified.

All throughout the Bible, God wants His people to repent and to return to obedience to His law, and even Jesus began his ministry with that message, so it would be absurd to interpret Galatians 5:4 as Paul warning us against following Christ by saying that we will be cut off from Christ if we follow Christ. In Psalms 119:29, David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to follow the Mosaic Law, so that is what it means to be under grace, not the way to fall from grace. It would be absurd to think that David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him how to fall from grace.

On another occasion Paul says "circumcision is NOTHING" 1 Corinthians 7:19. The serious implication of these 3 words is far reaching. These words would have been totally offensive to the Jew who refused to give up the OT law, who refused Christ and His NT. The implication is that when a child was born to Hebrew parents the FIRST thing done was circumcision with circumcision representing a sign, a covenant promise that child would be brought up being taught the OT law and keep that OT law. The implication being this; if the beginning step in keeping the OT law (circumcision) is nothing, then the entire OT law is also nothing.

Paul goes on to then say "uncircumcision is NOTHING" meaning being circumcised or uncircumcised is NOTHING, that circimcision or uncircumcison have NO salvific or moral meaning to them. Being a Jew or non-Jew means NOTHING when it comes to NT salvation. Therefore NONE of the OT commands have to be kept, including circumcision, in order to be saved.

Final point on this, under the OT law God commanded circumcision. So when Paul says "circumcision is nothing" does that imply no one has to obey any command of God at all? Of course not for Paul then tells us what matters, that being, "keeping the commandments of God". Again, not having to keep the OT command to be circumcised implies a change in law, a change in God's commands going from OT to the NT and we today are to obey Christ and His NT (Hebrews 5:9; John 14:15).

Galatians 5:6:
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; (so what does avail?) but faith which worketh by love. A "faith that worketh by love" is parallel to "keeping the commands of God" in 1 Cor 7:19.
In Galatians 6:15 Paul says AGAIN
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, (then what avails?) but a new creature". One becomes a new creature in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17) when one obeys the NT gospel and is baptized into Christ. In this baptism there is a circumcision "made without hands" where God cuts away the body of sin, (Colossians 2:11-14).

In 1 Corinthians 7:19, Paul said that circumcision counts for nothing and that what matters is obeying the commands of God, however, you quoted just the first half of that verse in order to argue that obeying the commands of God counts for nothing. In Romans 3:1-2, Paul also said that circumcision has much value in every way, and in Romans 2:25, he said that circumcision has value if we obey the Mosaic Law, so the issue is not that it either has or doesn't have value, but that it has no inherent value and that its value is entirely derived from whether we obey the Mosaic Law. In Romans 2:26, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to the Mosaic Law, which is the same way to tell for a Jew (Deuteronomy 10:12-16, 30:6), while having an uncircumcised heart is associating with refusing to obey the Mosaic Law (Jeremiah 9:24-26, Acts 7:51-53). What Paul was speaking against was some Jews who were considering themselves to have a higher status than Gentiles because they were circumcised, not against the commands of God. Paul did not have the authority to countermand God, so he should not be interpreted as trying to do that, especially because he was a servant of God.

Either there are correct and incorrect reasons for someone to become circumcised, and Paul was only speaking against the incorrect reasons, or according to Galatians 5:2, Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised, and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US who are circumcised. In Acts 15:1, they were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the purpose for why God commanded circumcision, so the problem was that they were wanting to require circumcision for an incorrect reasons that went above and beyond what God commanded. So the Jerusalem Council upheld the Mosaic Law by correctly ruling against that requirement, and a ruling against requiring what God hasn't commanded should not be mistaken as being a ruling against obeying what God has commanded, as if the Jerusalem Council had the authority to countermand God.

For there has been a change of law (Hebrews 7:12) from the OT to NT.

The way to testify about God's righteousness is straightforwardly based on God's righteousness, not on any particular covenant, and God's righteousness is eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to testy about God's righteousness are eternally valid regardless of which covenant someone is under, if any. If the way to testify about God's righteousness were to change when the New Covenant was made, then God's righteousness would not be eternal, so Hebrews 7:12 is not speaking about a change of the law in regard to its content, such as with it becoming righteous to commit idolatry or sinful to help the poor, but rather in context it is speaking about a change of the priesthood, which would also require a change of the law in regard to its administration.

The OT law has NOTHING to do with NT Christianity and how one becomes a new creature in Christ, the OT law does not dictate how the Christian worships God nor how one is saved today.

In Ephesians 2:10, we have been made new creations in Christ in order to do good works, and in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, everything spoken by God is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness that the many of God might be thoroughly equipped to do every good work, which is inclusive of the Mosaic Law.

One cannot earn righteousness from God but one must meet the necessary precondition God's puts upon His free gifts. Obedience to GOd's NT is a necessary precondition that one must meet to be righteous ("obedience UNTO righteousness" - Romans 6:16) and meeting the precondition upon a free gift earns NOTHING.

In Romans 6:19-23, no longer presenting ourselves as slaves to impurity, lawlessness, and sin is contrasted with now presenting ourselves as slaves to God and to righteousness leading to sanctification, and the goal of sanctification is eternal life in Christ, so obedience to the Mosaic Law is part of the content of God's gift of eternal life.

Paul calls the OT law a "yoke of bondage" (Galatians 5:1) for it required perfect, flawless law keeping of the WHOLE OT (not just the 10 commds.) to be just before God. Yet no Jew (other than Jesus) could keep it perfectly. Therefore the OT law demonstrated to the Jew he must rely on God's grace to be justified rather than relying on his own ability to keep the WHOLE OT law perfectly. Acts 15 there were Judiazing teachers trying to bind the OT law upon Gentile Christian converts and the Apostles met about this issue (Acts of the Apostles 15:1-2) To which Paul said of binding the OT yoke of bondage upon the Gentiles "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" They were not to put the yoke of bondage of the OT law upon the Gentiles, a bondage they nor their Jewish ancestors could bear, for again, that law required flawless law keeping to the WHOLE law for just one sin brings the curse of the OT law upon one.

The Psalms express an extremely positive view of the Mosaic Law, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, so if we consider the Psalms to be Scripture and to therefore express a correct view of it, then we will share it, as Paul did (Romans 7:22), while the view that it is a yoke of bondage is incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture. You should not interpret Galatians 5:1 as Paul speaking against the Law of God that he delighted in obeying, but rather he was speaking against works of the law. Furthermore, in Deuteronomy 30:11-14, God said that His law is not too difficult to obey, so if they had been speaking about the Mosaic Law as being a yoke of bondage, then they would have been in direct disagreement with God and would therefore have been wrong. Likewise, in 1 John 5:3, to love God is to obey His commandments which are not burdensome, so they were not speaking about the Mosaic Law as being burdensome. The Jerusalem Council and the authors of the NT were servants of God who viewed the Psalms as Scripture, so we should not interpret what they said in a way that imposes onto them a view that is in disagreement with God and incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture.

Andrewn · Apr 6, 2021

Soyeong said:
Ephesians 2:14-15 is referring to a law that is not eternal, therefore it is not referring to any of God's laws. God did not make any mistakes when He gave the law, so he had no need to remove His own laws. Furthermore, God did not give any laws for the purpose of creating a dividing wall of hostility, but rather God's law instructs us to love our neighbor as ourselves, so I'm not seeing any justification for interpreting those verses as referring to the Law of Moses, especially when Jesus specifically said that he came not to abolish the law (Matthew 5:17).

Clearly, according to Mat 5:17, Jesus came not to destroy the Torah but to complete it (Gr Pleroo). But some of your claims about the Torah are not supported:

1) "God's law instructs us to love our neighbor as ourselves." Yes but the word "neighbor" was understood to mean other Jews. Remember the hate of Jews to Samaritans and Jesus' conversation with the woman at Jacob's well?

2) "God did not give any laws for the purpose of creating a dividing wall of hostility." Yes but some ordinances existed mainly to “fence in” the race through whom the Messiah was to come.

3) "Ephesians 2:14-15 is referring to a law that is not eternal, therefore it is not referring to any of God's laws." Yes but let's examine closely this passage, and I will quote from the Complete Jewish Bible:

Eph 2:14 For he himself is our shalom — he has made us both one and has broken down the m’chitzah which divided us 15 by destroying in his own body the enmity occasioned by the Torah, with its commands set forth in the form of ordinances. He did this in order to create in union with himself from the two groups a single new humanity and thus make shalom,

What can we conclude? There used to be a middle wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles because of the law code of mitzvot contained in regulations. This wall of separation, Jesus abolished by his sacrificial death, thus making both groups into one.

Did Jesus abolish the entire Torah? No, he completed it. Did Jesus' Apostles abolish certain regulations? Yes, for example, in the Jerusalem Council moved quickly to abolish circumcision and dietary regulations.

Soyeong said:
God is not in disagreement with Himself about which laws we should follow, so the Law of Christ is the same as the Law of the Spirit and the Law of the Father, which was given to Moses.

It's a significant error to conflate the Law of Moses with the Law of the Spirit. The former has no power and the latter has the power of God.

I haven't read all your messages, but the above response is limited to the portion I read.

Yarddog · Apr 6, 2021

Lifelong_sinner said:
hello all. so i just got back from talking to a preacher up the street from me. i have been questioning salvation, and i have to say that this preacher really confused me. so i asked him a few questions, like are backsliders christian? and is addiction a sin? he said yes to both. but the one thing that bothered me is he brought up being under the law. his belief was that christians are not under the law, or ten commandments, and that the only commandments to follow are 1. love the Lord thy God with all your heart, mind, and soul. and 2. love they neighbor as thy self. he said that if you followed those 2 commandments, all the other laws would be followed as a result of love.

am i wrong to think this didnt sound right?????

I know that this can be quite difficult subject to discuss because there are so many different beliefs but I can try to explain how I see it.

The early Christian Church was called "the Way" because there were two ways to attempt to find righteousness. The Jewish way, "the law of Moses", which the 10 Commandments were part of, or The Cross.

The Jewish way meant obedience to the law while the Christian way was accepting the death of God the Son on the cross as your obedience. "Works" vs "Faith".

Soyeong · Apr 6, 2021

Yarddog said:
I know that this can be quite difficult subject to discuss because there are so many different beliefs but I can try to explain how I see it.

The early Christian Church was called "the Way" because there were two ways to attempt to find righteousness. The Jewish way, "the law of Moses", which the 10 Commandments were part of, or The Cross.

The Jewish way meant obedience to the law while the Christian way was accepting the death of God the Son on the cross as your obedience. "Works" vs "Faith".

The Way is God's way and there are many verses that describe the Mosaic Law as being instructions for how to walk in God's way, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, Psalms 103:7, and many others. In Romans 3:21-22, the Law and the Prophets testify that the righteousness of God comes through faith in Christ for all who believed, so this has always been the one and only way that there has ever been to find righteousness. In Genesis 6:8-9, Noah found grace in the eyes of God and was a righteous man, so he was declared righteous by grace through faith by the same means as everyone else. Likewise, everyone else listed in Hebrews 11 are examples of people who lived in the OT who were justified by faith. God had no reason to provide an alternative and unattainable means of finding righteousness by obeying His law, so that was never the goal for why we should obey it. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Mosaic Law, so the same faith by which we are justified is also expressed as obedience to the Mosaic Law. In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law is what it means to believe in what Jesus accomplished on the cross.

Soyeong · Apr 6, 2021

Andrewn said:
Clearly, according to Mat 5:17, Jesus came not to destroy the Torah but to complete it (Gr Pleroo). But some of your claims about the Torah are not supported:

1) "God's law instructs us to love our neighbor as ourselves." Yes but the word "neighbor" was understood to mean other Jews. Remember the hate of Jews to Samaritans and Jesus' conversation with the woman at Jacob's well?

In Leviticus 19:18, it instructs to love our neighbor as ourselves, and in Leviticus 19:34, it instructs to treat the stranger who sojourns with us and to love him as ourselves. Furthermore loving our enemies is in accordance with with Exodus 23:4-5, Deuteronomy 23:7, Proverbs 24:17-18, and Proverbs 25:21-22.

2) "God did not give any laws for the purpose of creating a dividing wall of hostility." Yes but some ordinances existed mainly to “fence in” the race through whom the Messiah was to come.

Israel was given the role of being a light and a blessing to the nations (Deuteronomy 4:5-8, Isaiah 2:2-3, Isaiah 49:6), so while serving as a light to the nations required them to be set apart from the nations, the purpose was not in order to create hostility or to prevent people from the nations from affiliating themselves with Israel. In Exodus 12:38, there was a mixed multitude that went up out of Egypt, so there were Gentiles at the foot of Sinai, and in Joshua 8:33, Israel was inclusive of both the foreigner and the native born.

3) "Ephesians 2:14-15 is referring to a law that is not eternal, therefore it is not referring to any of God's laws." Yes but let's examine closely this passage, and I will quote from the Complete Jewish Bible:

Eph 2:14 For he himself is our shalom — he has made us both one and has broken down the m’chitzah which divided us 15 by destroying in his own body the enmity occasioned by the Torah, with its commands set forth in the form of ordinances. He did this in order to create in union with himself from the two groups a single new humanity and thus make shalom,

What can we conclude? There used to be a middle wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles because of the law code of mitzvot contained in regulations. This wall of separation, Jesus abolished by his sacrificial death, thus making both groups into one.

Did Jesus abolish the entire Torah? No, he completed it. Did Jesus abolish certain regulations? Yes, for example, in the Jerusalem Council the Apostles moved quickly to abolish circumcision and dietary regulations.

As it states, we should conclude that he destroyed the enmity. To quote the CJB commentary, "The enmity is not the Torah."

In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus said he came to fulfill the Torah in contrast with saying that he came not to abolish it, so you should not interpret that as meaning essentially the same thing. Furthermore, Jesus also warned those who would relax to least part of the Torah or teach others to do the same, so that doesn't leave any room for abolishing any part of it, so say that parts were abolished is to call Jesus a liar and to disregard his warning. In Titus 2:14, it doesn't say that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from any laws, but in order to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so saying that Jesus abolished any laws undermines what he accomplished on the cross.

In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from God's law, so if Jesus had done that, then he would have sinned and disqualified himself from being our Savior. Likewise, in Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone was a false prophet who not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying the Torah, so if Jesus had done as you suggest, then Jews who have rejected Jesus as the Messiah would be acting in accordance with what God has instructed them to do. Likewise, the Jerusalem Council had no authority to countermand God and would have been guilty of sin and would have been false prophets if they had tried to abolish any of God's laws, however, they were servants of God, so they did not do that.

"To fulfill the law" means "to cause God's will as made known in His law to be obeyed as it should be” (NAS Greek Lexicon pleroo 2c3). After Jesus said he came to fulfill the law in Matthew 5, he proceeded to fulfill it six times throughout the rest of the chapter by teaching how to correctly obey it or by completing our understanding of it. In Galatians 5:14, loving our neighbor fulfills the entire law, so it refers to something that countless people have done, not to something unique that only Jesus did. In Galatians 6:2, bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ, so you should interpret that in the same way as you interpret fulfilling the Law of Moses.

It's a significant error to conflate the Law of Moses with the Law of the Spirit. The former has no power and the latter has the power of God.

I haven't read all your messages, but the above response is limited to the portion I read.

I agree that the Spirit has the power of God, but that power includes leading us to obey God His law (Ezekiel 36:26-27). In Romans 7:25-8:2, Paul equated the Torah with the Law of the Spirit by contrasting them both with the law of sin. 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. In Galatian 5:19-22, everything listed as works of the flesh that are against the Spirit are also against the Torah, while all of the fruits of the Spirit are aspects of God's nature that are in accordance with it. In Acts 5:32, the Spirit is given to those who obey God.

Andrewn · Apr 7, 2021

Soyeong said:
"To fulfill the law" means "to cause God's will as made known in His law to be obeyed as it should be” (NAS Greek Lexicon pleroo 2c3). After Jesus said he came to fulfill the law in Matthew 5, he proceeded to fulfill it six times throughout the rest of the chapter by teaching how to correctly obey it or by completing our understanding of it.

Yes, this is a good example of how Jesus completed the Torah. Jewish rabbi believed in a written Torah and an oral Torah. The latter came to be written after the destruction of Jerusalem in the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Talmud but some of its regulations were previously taught by the pharisees and rejected by Jesus as in Mat 5.

In the Council of Jerusalem, the Apostle decided that Gentile converts to Christianity were not obligated to keep most of the fasts, and other specific rituals, including the rules concerning circumcision of males. Thus it was deemed that certain regulations in the Torah were no longer applicable to Christians. After the destruction of Jerusalem, the rabbis themselves had to reach parallel but not exactly similar conclusions as it became obvious that certain regulations could no longer be enforced (Temple regulations, stoning adulterers, etc.).

The point is that Christianity from its very inception proclaimed that justification is by faith alone while accepting the Torah with all its excellent points that you aptly exposed. The Lord and his apostles explained these commandments in the right way intended by the Lawgiver Himself and discarded regulations that had lost their usefulness. In this way, the Torah was completed / fulfilled.

Soyeong said:
I agree that the Spirit has the power of God, but that power includes leading us to obey God His law (Ezekiel 36:26-27). In Romans 7:25-8:2, Paul equated the Torah with the Law of the Spirit by contrasting them both with the law of sin.

The law of the Spirit and the law of Moses are not the same even though they're on the same side, being against the law of sin. I think we're more or less in agreement, here.

Butterball1 · Apr 7, 2021

Soyeong said:
Christ set sinless example for us to follow of how to follow the Mosaic Law, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 21:22), so it is absurd to interpret Galatians as Paul saying that followers of Christ shouldn't follow Christ. Christ also 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, so it is also absurd to think that we reject the Gospel of Christ by following the Gospel of Christ. So his problem was not with those teaching obedience to the Mosaic Law, but rather, his problem was with Judaizers who were teaching that Gentiles needed to obey their works of the law in order to become justified.

All throughout the Bible, God wants His people to repent and to return to obedience to His law, and even Jesus began his ministry with that message, so it would be absurd to interpret Galatians 5:4 as Paul warning us against following Christ by saying that we will be cut off from Christ if we follow Christ. In Psalms 119:29, David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to follow the Mosaic Law, so that is what it means to be under grace, not the way to fall from grace. It would be absurd to think that David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him how to fall from grace.

In 1 Corinthians 7:19, Paul said that circumcision counts for nothing and that what matters is obeying the commands of God, however, you quoted just the first half of that verse in order to argue that obeying the commands of God counts for nothing. In Romans 3:1-2, Paul also said that circumcision has much value in every way, and in Romans 2:25, he said that circumcision has value if we obey the Mosaic Law, so the issue is not that it either has or doesn't have value, but that it has no inherent value and that its value is entirely derived from whether we obey the Mosaic Law. In Romans 2:26, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to the Mosaic Law, which is the same way to tell for a Jew (Deuteronomy 10:12-16, 30:6), while having an uncircumcised heart is associating with refusing to obey the Mosaic Law (Jeremiah 9:24-26, Acts 7:51-53). What Paul was speaking against was some Jews who were considering themselves to have a higher status than Gentiles because they were circumcised, not against the commands of God. Paul did not have the authority to countermand God, so he should not be interpreted as trying to do that, especially because he was a servant of God.

Either there are correct and incorrect reasons for someone to become circumcised, and Paul was only speaking against the incorrect reasons, or according to Galatians 5:2, Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised, and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US who are circumcised. In Acts 15:1, they were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the purpose for why God commanded circumcision, so the problem was that they were wanting to require circumcision for an incorrect reasons that went above and beyond what God commanded. So the Jerusalem Council upheld the Mosaic Law by correctly ruling against that requirement, and a ruling against requiring what God hasn't commanded should not be mistaken as being a ruling against obeying what God has commanded, as if the Jerusalem Council had the authority to countermand God.

The way to testify about God's righteousness is straightforwardly based on God's righteousness, not on any particular covenant, and God's righteousness is eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to testy about God's righteousness are eternally valid regardless of which covenant someone is under, if any. If the way to testify about God's righteousness were to change when the New Covenant was made, then God's righteousness would not be eternal, so Hebrews 7:12 is not speaking about a change of the law in regard to its content, such as with it becoming righteous to commit idolatry or sinful to help the poor, but rather in context it is speaking about a change of the priesthood, which would also require a change of the law in regard to its administration.

In Ephesians 2:10, we have been made new creations in Christ in order to do good works, and in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, everything spoken by God is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness that the many of God might be thoroughly equipped to do every good work, which is inclusive of the Mosaic Law.

In Romans 6:19-23, no longer presenting ourselves as slaves to impurity, lawlessness, and sin is contrasted with now presenting ourselves as slaves to God and to righteousness leading to sanctification, and the goal of sanctification is eternal life in Christ, so obedience to the Mosaic Law is part of the content of God's gift of eternal life.

The Psalms express an extremely positive view of the Mosaic Law, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, so if we consider the Psalms to be Scripture and to therefore express a correct view of it, then we will share it, as Paul did (Romans 7:22), while the view that it is a yoke of bondage is incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture. You should not interpret Galatians 5:1 as Paul speaking against the Law of God that he delighted in obeying, but rather he was speaking against works of the law. Furthermore, in Deuteronomy 30:11-14, God said that His law is not too difficult to obey, so if they had been speaking about the Mosaic Law as being a yoke of bondage, then they would have been in direct disagreement with God and would therefore have been wrong. Likewise, in 1 John 5:3, to love God is to obey His commandments which are not burdensome, so they were not speaking about the Mosaic Law as being burdensome. The Jerusalem Council and the authors of the NT were servants of God who viewed the Psalms as Scripture, so we should not interpret what they said in a way that imposes onto them a view that is in disagreement with God and incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture.

When Saul converted to Christianity, he left the law of Moses and Judaism to become a Christian and was under law to Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21) not under law to Moses. Paul condemned those in Galatia for leaving the NT and going back to the OT pointing out it was sinful, Galatians 5:4; Romans 7:1-6.

Circumcision being nothing implies the OT law is nothing, it is not necessary to salvation nor does it dicatate, direct NT Christianity. Romans 2:25 says nothing at all about people today having to keep the OT law. In the context of Romans chapter 1 and 2 Paul is proving all, both Gentile and Jew, are sinners. After proving Gentiles are sinners in chapter 1 Paul turns his attention to the Jews in chapter 2. The Jews were given their own law which gave them an advantage over the Gentile, (Romans 3:1-2). Even though it was an advantage to the Jew, being given that OT law obligated the Jew to also keep it, obey it...which they did not. Paul pointed out the Jews hypcrisy under that OT law "thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?" The Jews accused others of stealing when they stole themselves, they robbed from God (Malachi 3:8-9). Paul's point therefore in Romans 2:25 is that even though the Jews were given their own law and it came with certain privileges as circumcision, they were obligated to keep that law which they did not....they sinned therefore proving Paul's point that Jews are also sinners just as the Gentiles therefore no better than the Gentiles, (Romans 3:9).
So in Romans 2 Paul's point is NOT trying to prove that the OT law is to be kept by men today but rather Paul's point was to prove Gentile and Jews are both sinners and Paul demonstrates the Jews did not keep the OT law given them thereby making them sinners proving his point. The point remains, circumcision is nothing thereby the OT law is nothing.

David did love the OT law and kept it for it ws the law he lived under. But we today are not under the OT but are to love and keep Christ's NT that can justify which that OT law David lived under could not do. Psalms 66:13-15 David offered animal sacrifices as the OT law required. Are you offering these sacrifices as David? THose under the law are bound to keep the WHOLE law for just one offense brings the curse of the law upon one.

When Paul spoke of 'bondage" or "yolk of bondage" he was for a fact referring to the OT law. False Judaizing teachers lead away some Christians at Galatia away from the NT (Galatians 1:6-7) back to the OT trying to make them keep the OT law. Paul clearly refers to the OT law as "bondage", how those Galatians left freedom in Christ found in the NT and lead back to "bondage" of the OT law, Galatians 2:4. Paul says in returning back to the OT law those Galatians were returning refers to the "weak & beggerly" as Paul calls the OT, Galatians 4:9. Leaving Christ and the NT gospel, they were returning back to bondage of the OT law (Galatians 5:1). The OT law is called bondage for it 'bound' one to sin. To be justified before God under the OT law, that law required perfect, flawless law keeping which the Jew could not do, the Jew would always sin thereby leaving the Jew in "bondage" to sin.

Romans 6:19-23 there is nothing here at all about men today having to keep any of the OT law. Paul's point in Romans 7:1-6 still stands in it being sinful to return back to the OT law. Paul uses the insitution of marriage to make his point. If a woman is already married yet marries another man then she is an adulteress being married to 2 men at the same time. This is parallel to the Christian who is married to Christ and His NT, it the Christian goes back to keep thereby 'marry' himself to the OT law then he is committing spiritual adultery against Christ. Yet if the woman's first husband is dead she is free from the law to marry another man. This is parallel to Christ Who took the all OT law out of the way on the cross freeing men from having to keep that law and therefore can keep Christ's NT law without committing spiritual adultery in keeping both laws. Paul's point about it being sinful (spiritual adultery) to go back to the OT law is very simple and straightforward here.
In Romans 6, those Romans being freed from sin turning to serve righteousness came about as a result of their obeying the NT gospel, not the OT law. The doctrine delivered them which they obeyed (Romans 6:17) was the NT gospel. Again, the OT law and its strict requirment in keeping ALL the law flawlessly and perfectly could not justify for the Jew would always sinned. If the OT law and its sacrifices could perfectly justify then there would have been no need for Christ to come to earth and die and bring His NT gospel that does justify, Hebrews 10:1-4 if that OT law come make the comers unto it perfect then there would be no reason for that law to cease making Christ's death in vain Galatians 2:21..."for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain"

The NT is what guides the Christian, not the OT law. THe NT guides the Christian in how he is to worship, not the OT law. In Hebrews chapter 9 and 10 Paul shows the difference between these 2 laws. Worship under the OT law was carnal in nature "which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation" (Hebrews 9:10). Whereas NT worship is done is spirit (John 4:23-24). Note the word "until" in Hebrews 9:10. Until is a time limiting word, the OT law was to be kept UNTIL a time of reformation ('time of refreshing' Acts of the Apostles 3:19) which came with Christ and His NT gospel. There was no 'time of refeshing" under the OT law where sins could be wiped out completely, (Hebrews 10:3-4) for that could only happen under the NT gospel and the blood of Christ.

Butterball1 · Apr 7, 2021

Andrewn said:
My take is that we're all in agreement about this and that the problem lurking behind this discussion is the concept of "Inerrancy."

I suspect you believe that either the Torah is to be kept completely and verbatim, which is obviously ridiculous, or to be ignored and abrogated, which is not really a biblical approach as @Soyeong has shown.

But the matter is not black or white. The Christian approach is to interpret the OT in light of the NT. Using this approach St Augustine wrote:

"Surely no-one will doubt that God’s law was necessary, not just for the people of that time [the Old Testament], but is also necessary for us today, for the right ordering of our life. True enough, Christ took away from us that crushing yoke of many ceremonies, so that we are not circumcised according to the flesh, we do not sacrifice victims from the cattle, we do not rest even from necessary works on the Sabbath (although we keep the pattern of the seven day week), and other such things. We keep these laws in a spiritual sense; the shadowy symbols have been removed and we see them in the light of the realities they signified…[yet] who can say that Christians ought not to keep the commands which tell us to serve the one God with religious obedience, not to worship an idol, not to take the Lord’s name in vain, to honour one’s parents, not to commit adulteries, murders, thefts, false witness, not to covet another man’s wife or anything at all that belongs to another? Who is so ungodly as to say that he does not keep those precepts of the law, because he is a Christian and stands not under the law, but under grace?[1]"

Ezra Institute: Home page

We are not all in agreement if anyone here thinks any of the OT law is to be kept today. Christ removed all the OT law including the 10 commandments replacing that OT law and Judaism with the NT gospel and Christianity. If the 10 commanments were in effect today the Christian would be required to remember the Sabbath Day, something the NT does not require. Under the OT law, thou shalt not commit adultery condemned the overt whereas the NT condemns the lusting in the heart, Matthew 5:27-28 same with murder Matthew 5:21-22. David offered burnt animal sacrifices to God as required by the OT law (Psalms 66:13-15) but that does not require the NT Christian to do the same for David or the OT law is not the law Christians are to follow when it comes to worshipping God but the Christian is to follow the NT. David hated his enemy and prayed they be destroyed (Psalms 139:21-22) but that is sinful for the NT Christian, (Matthew 5:43-44). Because David played musical instruments does not make it right for the NT Christian to use them in worship (Ephesians 5:18-21).

Butterball1 · Apr 7, 2021

Soyeong said:
Paul spoke about multiple different categories of law, such as the Law of God, the law of sin, and works of the law, so you need to justify which law we should interpret Paul as referring to because you are guaranteed to misunderstand him if you assume that he was always speaking about the Law of God rather than just assuming that he was always speaking about God's law.

In Romans, when Paul referred to the OT law he simply referred to it as 'law". He made no distinction between moral or ceremonial laws. In Romans 3:10-18 Paul takes quotes from Psalms and Isaiah and refers to them as "law" ( Romans 3:19). The entire OT is called "law" and Christ removed ALL the OT law not just parts of it.

Andrewn · Apr 7, 2021

Butterball1 said:
We are not all in agreement if anyone here thinks any of the OT law is to be kept today. Christ removed all the OT law including the 10 commandments replacing that OT law and Judaism with the NT gospel and Christianity.

Do you think the OT is an integral part of the Holy Bible? Why or why not?

Butterball1 said:
If the 10 commanments were in effect today the Christian would be required to remember the Sabbath Day, something the NT does not require.

Christian catechisms, both Catholic and Protestant, command keeping the Sabbath on Sunday. This how Christians throughout the centuries understood the command in the Bible.

Butterball1 · Apr 7, 2021

Andrewn said:
Do you think the OT is an integral part of the Holy Bible? Why or why not?

The OT is important for without it, it would be extremely difficult to understand things in the NT. The OT is also important for we today can learn by example from those who lived under the OT law, (Hebrews 4:11; 1 Corinthians 10:11). Those who became unfaithful under the OT law fell. Christians can learn from that example for Christians that become unfaithful under the NT can also fall.

Andrewn said:
Christian catechisms, both Catholic and Protestant, command keeping the Sabbath on Sunday. This how Christians throughout the centuries understood the command in the Bible.

The OT Sabbath was to keep 7th day as a day of rest, Exodus 16:26. The Christian has no obligation to follow that OT law.

Hebrews 4:1 speaks of a promise of rest 'left' to the Christian. The author of Hebrews "elected to base his appeal upon the Old Testament, equally valid, and better designed to woo his readers back from a reversion to Judaism; hence the statement that "there was a promise LEFT," in the sense of being "left open." How so? Five hundred years, almost, after Israel entered Canaan, David in Psalms 95:7-11 spoke of there being a rest for God's people, indicating that their final entry into Canaan was not the full attainment of that rest, and that something much more than that was involved."
Coffman Comm. (my emp)

Hebrews 4:3 "The use of the present tense, "we do enter into that rest," stresses the first and immediate phase of the Christian's rest and focuses the attention of the believer upon the benefits and joys of that Christian service which are already his and in the process of being enjoyed by him. This verse again strikes at the tragic failure of Israel who, though entering Canaan, did not in fact enter into God's rest, in the higher and better sense of becoming a holy nation of righteous and devoted worshipers of God, as God had commanded them (Exodus 19:3-6);"
Coffman Comm.

Hebrews 4:5 "This quotation, as in Hebrews 4:3, is again from Psalms 95:11, serving the purpose, alongside of the quotation from Genesis 2:2, of identifying the rest spoken of here as that of God himself, following the six days of creation, and to which heavenly rest God has always invited people to come and share. To make this place any kind of an argument for people's keeping the sabbath day is to miss the entire argument of the epistle in this portion. The argument is that a rest remains BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ENTERED by the Hebrews! Therefore, it (rest) was not entering Canaan nor keeping the sabbath day, for they did that. Thus, the marvelous rest referred to here can be neither of those things but must be understood as a reference back to the rest of God himself which is still in progress, a rest the Jews could have entered but did not, and likewise a rest that many now have the right to enter but may come short of it; hence the warning."
Coffman Comm (my emp)

So there is a 'rest' Christians have, a much better rest which fleshly Israel did not attain under the OT law (Hebrews 4:8). Jews could have entered that rest which Christians have, but most Jews rejected Christ and Christianity. But for those few Hebrew Christian converts, they are being warned if they backslide out of Christianity back to the OT law, they will come short of having that rest, (Hebrews 4:1).

Hebrews 4:6 "This is a summary of the argument. God desires and has purposed from all eternity that some shall enter into his rest; and, seeing that (fleshly) Israel did not, as proved by David's saying so in Psalms 95, the way is still open for whomsoever will accept the invitation."
Coffman Comm.

Hebrews 4:8 "This means that if Joshua had given the people the rest spoken of here, in that he led them into Canaan, then David would not have held it (rest) up as something yet unattained such a long time after that."
Coffman Comm.

Andrewn · Apr 7, 2021

Butterball1 said:
The OT is important for without it, it would be extremely difficult to understand things in the NT. The OT is also important for we today can learn by example from those who lived under the OT law, (Hebrews 4:11; 1 Corinthians 10:11). Those who became unfaithful under the OT law fell. Christians can learn from that example for Christians that become unfaithful under the NT can also fall.

Yes, you're right.

Joh 5:39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,

Luk 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

Butterball1 said:
The Christian has no obligation to follow that OT law.

Nobody can follow OT obligations, not Christians nor Jews, bec the Temple has been destroyed and Israel is no longer a theocracy. But there are principles in the OT that we should heed and that the Lawgiver intended to last forever.

no longer under the law?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads