The God of the New
- Thread starter Aussie Pete
- Start date
Soyeong
Well-Known Member
- Mar 10, 2015
- 12,433
- 4,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Single
I follow the Living Word by obeying the Mosaic Law. The Living Word began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to Gentiles, 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). Furthermore, the Living Word set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6), so he spent his ministry teaching his followers how to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example. In Acts 2:38, when Peter instructed his audience to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sin, the Mosaic Law is again how they knew what sin is. In Romans 15:4, Paul said that OT Scripture was written for our instruction, and in 15:18-19, his Gospel message involved bring Gentiles to obedience in word and in deed, so his Gospel was on the same page in regard to teaching repentance from our sins. Furthermore, Romans 10:16, 2 Thessalonians 1:8, and 1 Peter 4:17 all speak against those who do not obey the Gospel.
Upvote
0
aiki
Regular Member
Where does obeying God and living in righteousness begin? Obviously, with the First and Great Commandment. (Matthew 22:36-38) The Christian's righteousness is, ultimately, an expression of this deep longing, this deep thirst or desire, this love for God. If there is any command that is "eternally valid regardless of covenant" it is this one, but, you know, those I've encountered who are occupied with law-keeping, as the Pharisees were in Jesus' time, give mere lip service to the First and Great Commandment, like the Pharisees, obeying God's rules but doing so from hearts far from Him. (Matthew 15:7-8) I always look askance, then, at Christians who are pushing law-keeping, making it out to be the fundamental ground of Christian living. Such a view is called Moralism and leads, in my experience, to legalism and enormous hypocrisy.
The laws of ceremony and separation have most definitely become obsolete for the New Covenant Christian. Both Aussie Pete and I have already made posts in this thread showing this to be so. You're correct, though, Soyeong, that God's Moral Law remains binding upon all (not just Christians) today. I don't think Aussie Pete is suggesting Christians can throw off the Moral Law.
The Mosaic Law is the Moral Law plus laws of ceremony and separation. I don't then, as a NT believer ever urge fellow Christians to the keeping of the Mosaic Law. Jesus kept the Mosaic Law perfectly so that you and I, who cannot do so, might be free of its condemnation, free of the need to keep the letter of the law - as the Pharisees were so keen to do - but able by the power of the Holy Spirit to fulfill the righteous spirit of the law (love God with all you are and your neighbor as yourself - Matthew 22:39; Galatians 5:14). Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law and then atoned for all our sin as the "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world," once for all, ending the need for laws of ceremony and external rules of separation.
Galatians 3:1-7
1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.
2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?
3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?
5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith—
6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?
7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham.
Romans 2:28-29
28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.
29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
Hebrews 7:26-27
26 For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.
27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.
(See also: Hebrews 9)
But the Mosaic Law encompassed laws that were about foreshadowing the atoning sacrifice of Christ and that pointed to a spiritual, heart separation of a person unto God by faith. These laws were never meant to remain in force after Christ had come, and saved us from ourselves, and established a New Covenant between all who trust in him as their Savior and Lord and God the Father. So, yes, we keep God's Moral Law, but we are totally free of the sacrificial rituals and the external forms of separation confining the OT Israelite nation from neighboring pagan nations.
Again, I don't think Aussie Pete is suggesting a Christian may just abandon all morality, ignoring God's Moral Law under the banner of "freedom in Christ." He's putting the Moral Law in its proper place as the avenue through which we enter unhindered into holy, joyful, loving fellowship with God (Hebrews 12:14). Keeping God's Moral Law is not an end in itself; it isn't the point of the Christian life, as the legalist wants to assert, but merely a means to a far greater end: intimate communion with God. (1 Corinthians 1:9; 2 Corinthians 13:14; 1 John 1:3)
Is prophesying in Christ's name a lawless deed? How so? Is casting out demons in Christ's name a lawless act? How so? Is performing miraculous deeds in Jesus's name a form of lawlessness? How so? These were the things Jesus said those he would cast out claimed to have done. As far as I can see, they are all good things to have done and made better by having been done in Jesus's name. So, why were these acts of righteousness not regarded by Jesus as "doing the will of the Father"? The answer lies, I think, in what command those cast out never claimed to have kept: The First and Great Commandment. If you were going to make a case for entrance into God's kingdom, for having done God's will, wouldn't you start with this commandment? But, those Jesus cast out didn't. And so, to them Jesus says, "I never knew you."
Far too many Christians are going about with hearts cold toward God but externally honoring Him in their living. They aren't swearing, or committing adultery; they go to church regularly and tithe; they teach Sunday School classes and serve on the Worship Team; they don't drink alcohol, or watch dirty movies; but their hearts are far from God. One day, they will stand before Christ and point to all their external law-keeping and he will say to them, "Did you keep the First and Great Commandment?" When they fall silent, knowing their hearts never desired God, never longed for Him, never really loved Him, Jesus will say to them, "Depart from me. I never knew you." This is, I believe, the terrible lesson of Matthew 7:21-23.
This is the great danger of urging people to focus on law-keeping, on obeying God's law. Doing so does not reveal Christ to us, it merely paves the way for us to experience God in the way the Bible says all of His children can:
Conviction. (John 16:8)
Illumination. (John 14:26; 1 Corinthians 2:10-13)
Strengthening. (Ephesians 3:16; Romans 8:13; Philippians 2:13)
Transformation. (Galatians 5:22-23)
Victory. (Romans 6:1-11)
Etc.
Looking to experience God by way of keeping His laws mistakes profoundly what walking with God is supposed to be like.
Upvote
0
Soyeong
Well-Known Member
- Mar 10, 2015
- 12,433
- 4,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Single
In Romans 7:21-25, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of Moses and served it with his mind, but contrasted that with the law of sin, which held him captive, and which he served with his flesh. So if Romans 7:5-6 were referring to the Law of Moses rather than the law of sin, then that would mean that Paul delighted in stirring up sinful passions 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 8:1-4, Paul equated the Law of the Spirit with the Law of Moses by contrasting them both with the law of sin and death. 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 the Mosaic Law. In Galatians 5:19-21, everything listed as works of the flesh that are against the Spirit are also against the Mosaic Law, while all of the fruits of the Spirit are aspects of God's nature that are in accordance with it. After all, the Law of Moses was given by God and the Spirit is God, so it is the Law of the Spirit of life.
A chip off of the old block is someone who has the same nature or character as their father, and this is the sense that Jesus is the Son of God in that he is the exact expression of God's nature (Hebrews 1:3), which he expressed through living in sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law, so that is the same sense that we are born against a sons of God through partaking in the divine nature, which is why those who do not practice righteousness in obedience to the Mosaic Law are not children of God (1 John 3:10).
Do you consider Leviticus to be part of all Scripture?
Upvote
0
Soyeong
Well-Known Member
- Mar 10, 2015
- 12,433
- 4,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Single
In Exodus 20:6, God wanted His people to love Him and obey His commandments, in 1 John 5:3, to love God is to obey His commandments, and there are a number of verses in both the OT and the NT that connect our love for God with our obedience to His commandments, so we need both, and trying to obey God's commandments without love is just as lawless and fundamentally flawed as trying to love without obeying God's commandments. It's not just that obedience to anything that God could have commanded is a way to express our love for Him, but that all of the commandments that God specifically chose to give were given for the purpose of teaching us how to love, which is why Jesus said that they all hang on the greatest to commandments, so they are all connected, and if you agree that the command to love is eternally valid, then you should also agree that so are all the commandments that hang on it. When we express aspects of God's nature through our obedience to His laws for how to do that, we are expressing our love for those aspects of God's nature, which is why there are so many verses that connect our love for God with our obedience to Him.
In Matthew 23:23, Jesus referred to the Pharisees as being hypocrites and said that tithing is something that they ought to be doing while not neglecting weightier matters of the law of justice, mercy, and faithfulness, so his purpose in criticizing the Pharisees was in order to get them to repent and to call them to a fuller obedience to the Mosaic Law, not in order to say that they were too occupied with obeying God. At no point does the Bible treat being occupied with obeying God as being a negative thing, but rather it consistently calls for people to repent and become occupied with obeying it.
The laws that people consider to be moral or ceremonial vary widely depending on whom I ask, so in order to interpret the Bible in a way that derives our position from the Bible instead of way that inserts our position into the Bible, we need to establish an exhaustive list of which laws the authors of the Bible considered to be moral or ceremonial, however, the Bible never even refers to a single law as being moral or ceremonial. If I wanted, I could categorize God's laws based on which part of the body is most commonly used to obey/disobey them, such as with the law against theft being a hand law, however, the fact that I can do that does not establish that any of the authors of the Bible categorized God's laws in the same manner, so if I were to create my own doctrine out of my subcategories without establishing that they categorized God's laws in the same manner, such as if I decided that hand laws have become obsolete, then I would quickly run into the same error that you are making.
The subcategory or moral law implies that laws that aren't in that subcategory are moral to disobey, so in order to justify the existence of that subcategory, you would first need to establish that it can ever be moral to disobey God, which would involve you establishing that you have greater moral knowledge than God. Furthermore, you would also need to establish where the Bible gives standard by which we can use to determine which of God's laws are moral or not, which would be hampered by the fact that the Bible never makes any sort of attempt to distinguish between which laws are moral or not. While the Bible does refer to different subcategories of law, none of them carry the connotation of some being moral while others are not.
While there is now therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ (Romans 8:1), those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6), so freeing us from the condemnation of the Mosaic Law does not remove our obligation to obey it. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to free us from following any laws, but in order to redeem us from all lawlessness. Obeying God's law according to the letter has always been a perversion of it that undermines both the intent of what God has commanded and why He commanded it.
In regard to the laws that you think are obsolete, do you think that what they taught us about the nature of God is no longer true of God? For example, is what Passover teaches about God no longer true? In 1 Corinthians 5:6-8, Paul spoke in regard to how Passover foreshadowed Christ by drawing the connection of him being our Passover Lamb, however, instead of concluding that Passover is now obsolete, he concluded by saying that we should therefore continue to keep Passover. In Colossians 2:17, Paul said that God's holy days are foreshadows of what is to come, so we should live in a way that testifies about what is to come by continuing to observe them rather than a way that denies what is to come.
The Father has straightforwardly made His will known though His law (Psalms 40:8). If someone is not expressing God's nature then they are not truly obeying God's law and are thus a worker of lawlessness, so I would agree that someone who is not expressing love is a worker of lawlessness, though someone who refuses to submit to God's law is also a worker of lawlessness. The right solution to incorrectly obeying God's law is to start obeying it correctly, not to stop focusing on obeying God.
The Bible repeatedly says that God's commands are the way to experientially know or grow in a relationship with God and Christ. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by making known to him His ways that he might experientially know God and Israel too, and the Mosaic Law is often described as being instructions for how to walk in God’s ways, such as in Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, Psalms 103:7, and many others. In Jeremiah 9:3 and 9:6 they did not experientially know God and refuse to know Him because in 9:13, they had forsaken the Mosaic Law, while in 9:24, those who know God know that He delights in practicing steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in all of the earth, so delighting in expressing those and other aspects of God’s nature in obedience to the Mosaic Law is the way to experientially know God and Christ, who is the exact expression of God’s nature (Hebrews 1:3). In John 17:3, eternal life is experientially knowing God and Jesus, and in Matthew 19:17, the way to enter eternal life is by obeying God’s commands. In John 2:4, those who say that they know Jesus, but don’t obey his commands are liars and in 1 John 3:4-6, sin is the transgression of God’s law and those who continue to practice sin have neither seen nor know him. And again, in Matthew 7:23, God’s law is His instructions for how to know Jesus.
Upvote
0
aiki
Regular Member
Romans 7:22
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Don't see any mention in this verse of the Law of Moses, only the law of God.
Romans 7:23-25
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
The "law of sin in my members" are the driving, fleshly impulses that our unregenerate hearts indulge in a sinful degree and way. Paul makes this clear in verse 18:
Romans 7:18
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwells no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Here, Paul explicitly identifies his flesh - its powerful, natural impulses - as antagonistic to the righteousness that Paul wished to do. The "law of sin," then, is a principle of sin in Paul's flesh moving him irresistibly into doing things contrary to his desire to do right.
Romans 7:5
5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.
Paul's fleshly and sinful passions were provoked by God's Moral Law rather than guided and quelled by it which is why, in the next chapter, Paul wrote:
Romans 8:7-8
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
??? I have no idea what you're driving at, here...
Romans 8:1-4
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
I see no mention of the Law of Moses in these verses... As Paul had already explained, the "law of sin and death" was the Mosaic Law:
Romans 7:9-13
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
In this passage, Paul explained that the "commandment ordained to life," which cannot be anything other than the commandment of God, Paul found led him to death. This happened as Paul sinned in contravention of God's law, working death in him by that which was good (the commandment of God). This is the clarifying context in which to understand Paul's reference to the "law of sin and death" in Romans 8:2.
It is absolutely not the case, then, that Paul is "equating the law of the Spirit" with the Law of Moses.
Upvote
0
- Aug 14, 2019
- 9,081
- 8,284
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Divorced
Good luck with that. Where do you offer your sacrifices? Which of the 600 plus commandments apply to you? Do you keep them all? If not, you are doomed. Those who live by the Law have to be perfect or they will be judged by the Law also. If you can live by the law, then Jesus died in vain.
The gospel is NOT the law! The opposite! It is you who deny the gospel by clinging to what is obsolete. You imagine that keeping the Law of Moses is God's best. No way. Lord Jesus made it clear that the law was not God's standard of righteousness. (Sermon on the Mount).
Paul says that the purpose of the Law is to lead us to Christ. Once we have received Christ, we are meant to live by the Spirit, not the Law. You may not need Jesus, so maybe none of this applies to you. I am a sinner saved only by grace. That is as true today as it was 50 years ago when I received Christ. I realise my need of Him far more than I did 50 years ago. You are doing just fine following a set of rules. I'm not that good.
Upvote
0
Soyeong
Well-Known Member
- Mar 10, 2015
- 12,433
- 4,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Single
The Law of Moses was given by God (Deuteronomy 5:31-33), so who else's law could it be other than God's law? It is referred to as the Law of God in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23. David also repeatedly said that he delighted in obeying the Law of Moses, so Paul was expressing a view in accordance with the Psalms. Furthermore, Paul said in Romans 7:7 that if it hadn't been for the law, then he wouldn't have known what sin is, and he referred the law that commanded not to covet, which is part of the Law of Moses, and the Law of Moses was how the Israelites knew what sin is, so I'm not seeing any reason to think that the Law of God is referring to something other than the Law of Moses. If you look up how the "Law of God" or the "Law of the Lord" is used in the OT, then I don't see how it can be denied that it is referring to the Law of Moses when used in the NT.
In Romans 7:7, the Law of God is not sinful, but how we know what sin is, and when our sin is revealed, then that leads us to repent and causes sin to decrease, however, so it arouses sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, so it is sinful and causes sin to increase, so Romans 7:5 can't be referring to the same law as Romans 7:7. In Romans 7:22, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God, so any verse that you interpret as referring to the Law of God should make sense for it to be referring to a law that Paul delighted in obeying, so if Romans 7:5 were referring to the Law of God, then that would mean that Paul delighted in stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, which is absurd, but rather you granted that it was the law of sin that is a principle that caused Paul to do things contrary to his desire to do what is right. So there is a Law of God that teaches us how to do what is right and a law of sin that causes us not to obey the Law of God. In Romans 7:12-13, Paul said that the Law of God is holy, righteous, and good, and that it was not what was good that brought death to him, but rather it was the law of sin producing death in him through what is good, yet when you say that it is the Law of God that provoked sinful passions, then you are blaming what is good for bringing death to Paul.
Again, In Romans 7:25, Paul directly contrasted the Law of God that he served with his mind with the law of sin that he served with his flesh, so the law of sin should not be interpreted as referring to the Law of God. in Romans 7:9-13, I agree that the commandment ordained to life is referring to the Law of God, however, Paul said it was good and that it was not what was good that brought death to him, so he denied that the Law of God is the law of sin, but rather it was the law of sin acting on what was good that brought death to him. In Romans 7:25-8:2, Paul contrasted both the Law of God and the Law of the Spirit with the law of sin and death, so he was equating the two. If you agree that the Law of God was ordained to life, then you shouldn't have a problem with it being referred to as the Law of the Spirit of Life, especially when the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey it (Ezekiel 36:26-27). In Ezekiel 36:26-27, it uses the Hebrew words "chukim" and "mishpatim", which are the two major subcategories of the Mosaic Law in regard to loving God and our neighbor, and which includes the Spirit leading us to obey laws that you want to make obsolete.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Soyeong
Well-Known Member
- Mar 10, 2015
- 12,433
- 4,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Single
Even when the law was first given to Moses, there was not a single person who was required to keep them all, and not even Jesus kept the laws in regard to having a period or to giving birth. Some laws were only for the King, the High Priest, priests, judges, men, women, children, widows, those who are married, those who have servants, those who have animals, those who have crops, those who have tazrat, those who are living in the land, and those who are strangers living among them, while others were given to everyone. The Israelites were given laws with the condition "when you enter the land..." while they were still wandering the wilderness for 40 years, and when they were in exile in Babylon, the condition for their return to the land was to first return to obedience to God's law, which required them to have access to a temple that had been destroyed, so there is nothing wrong with not following laws that can't currently be followed.
The law itself came with instructions for what to do when the people sinned, so thinking that we need to have perfect obedience to it has always been a fundamental misunderstanding. Nowhere does the Bible say that we can't live by the law, but rather in Deuteronomy 30:11-20, it says that the law is not too difficult to obey and that obedience brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! So it was presented as a possibility and as a choice, not as the need for perfect obedience. Thinking that we need to have perfect obedience would mean that God essentially gave the law with the goal of dooming His children, which is expressing an extremely negative view of God, when in reality it was given for our own good in order to bless us (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13). Furthermore, the Bible records examples of people who did keep the law, such as in Joshua 22:1-3 and Luke 1:5-6.
Being judged by the law is far preferable to perishing apart from it. 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 saying that we can't do good works in obedience to God's laws for how to them is what would be the position that Christ died in vain.
I have given verses that show that the Gospel that Christ taught was to obey the Mosaic Law, so if you disagree, then please interact with what I said. I agree that the Mosaic Covenant is obsolete and I have not said anything about us needing to be under it, so I am not clinging to what is obsolete, but rather I have spoke about how we are to live under the New Covenant, which still involves following the Law of God (Hebrews 8:10).
The Mosaic Law leads us to Christ because everything in it was commanded for the purpose of teaching us how to have a relationship with him, but does not lead us to Christ so that we can reject what he taught and go back to living in 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 the Mosaic Law, and in Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the Mosaic Law, so living by the Spirit is not different than living by the Mosaic Law. I need Jesus and have said nothing to deny that I do. In Psalms 119:29-30, David wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Mosaic Law, and he chose the way of faithfulness, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith.
Upvote
0
- Aug 14, 2019
- 9,081
- 8,284
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Divorced
Like I said, which of the 600 plus apply to you? Do you obey all that apply all the time? Are you blameless? King David loves God's law. Yet he was a murdering adulterer also. You do not understand the purpose of the law. You do know what true salvation is.
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
- 4,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Single
A large portion of the 600+ laws were only in regard to the conduct of Levites, which other Israelites were not permitted to follow. Understanding how the law applies to us today is a matter of careful study, prayer, and leading of the Spirit. There are a number of people who weren't sinless who were nevertheless described as blameless, so they do not refer to the same thing, but rather being blameless is having our sins forgiven, and in that regard I am blameless. David also had his sins forgiven.
The Mosaic Covenant is often described in terms of being a marriage relationship between God and Israel, and as such, the Israelites needed to be taught how to have a relationship with God, and that is the purpose of the Mosaic Law. The alternative would be to deny that the Israelites were given instructions for how experientially know God, which is an untenable position. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by making known to him His ways that he might experientially know Him and Israel too, and there are many verses that describe the Mosaic Law as being instructions for how to walk in God's ways, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, Psalms 103:7, and many others, so again that is the purpose of the law. Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4), so living in obedience to God's law through faith is the content of God's gift of saving us from living in transgression of His law.
Upvote
0
aiki
Regular Member
Exactly. So, why don't you refer to God's law as such, like Paul does, rather than as the Law of Moses? Could it be that to do so begins to restrict what you can say that Paul meant when he referred to "the law of God"? Paul could have written, "the law of Moses," but he didn't. Why not? I think because Paul knew doing so would have created confusion, giving ground to Judaizers to say from Paul's own words that the laws of ceremony and separation were still in effect. As his letter to the Galatians plainly indicates, Paul was totally against the Judaizers and their efforts to bring New Covenant believers under the OT yoke of the Mosaic Law. So, I am careful not to equivocate in this area, using the law of God to mean exactly the same thing as the law of Moses, but, instead, to use Paul's terms as he gave them. I think you should, too.
But, very importantly, Paul was not living any longer under the Old Covenant, as David was. So, while both men delighted in God's law, they were not delighting in entirely the same law. The law of God under which Paul was living had been greatly reduced in its scope, the Mosaic laws of ceremony and separation set aside under the New Covenant, a believer's separation unto God being one of the heart and not the flesh.
Galatians 5:1-6
1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; you are fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision avails any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which works by love.
Romans 2:28-29
28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.
29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.
Why do you refuse to acknowledge what Paul explained here so clearly? Why have the works of the law overtaken the grace and love of God in your thinking?
Who has said that the "law is sinful"? I haven't. I did, though, point out that it was through God's law that Man understood what sin was. This is definitely what Paul thought and wrote to the Early Church:
Romans 3:19-20
19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.
20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Romans 7:7
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, 'You shalt not covet.'
It is in this sense, the sense in which the law defines sin, declaring to us all what is and isn't morally right, that the law of God is the "law of sin." This isn't the same as saying God's law is sinful, which Paul never does in the verse above, or anywhere else in his various epistles.
It seems to me, you're conflating "sin" with "sinful," the former term being a noun, the latter an adjective. The "law of sin" is a thing, a noun, in Paul's mind, that which gives shape to, or defines, what sin is; "sinful," however, is a description of something, as you're using it, assigning a wicked, morally-wrong quality to the law of God. When Paul calls the "law of God" the "law of sin and death," he is speaking, not to its moral character or quality, but to the purpose and effect of the law of God. As Paul explained in the verses above, the law of sin and death is so because it defines what sin is and shows us incapable of keeping it, bringing us as a consequence into death. (Romans 6:23; James 1:15; Galatians 6:7-8)
How you've gotten your wires so badly crossed in this matter I don't know, but Paul is very plain in his meaning, ruling out your notion that the "law of sin and death" is something other than the "law of God." In fact, Paul anticipated that some of his readers might think he was denigrating the law of God by saying it brought him into condemnation and death and so he carefully qualified his meaning:
Romans 7:10-13
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Galatians 3:21-25
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture has concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
An exam in school can have the effect of showing a person knows and has understood a certain body of knowledge. In this effect, an exam is very good. But an exam can also show that a person is deficient in their knowledge and has not understood a certain body of knowledge. And so, the intended good effect of the exam, for this person, has become something negative, exposing their ignorance and lack of understanding. We don't say, in this case, that the exam is itself an evil thing, but that its effect, for the badly prepared person under examination, is bad. So, I can say that, in this latter instance, the exam is the "exam of shame and failure" meaning that the effect of the exam on the unprepared student, not the exam itself, has been negative.
This is exactly how Paul uses the descriptive phrase, "the law of sin and death," referring to the effect of God's law on himself, not the character of God's law itself.
See above.
Romans 7:21 - Romans 8:1-4
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
The "law of sin and death" - God's law - would not have been such a law were it not for the "law of sin in my members" against which Paul warred and fell into sin. It was the principle of sin in Paul's flesh, which he could not resist, that brought him under the condemnation of God's law, that declared Paul's sin to be sin, and so placed him under the sentence of death. (Romans 6:23) So, the "law of sin and death" is the law of God, but the "law of sin in my members" is a principle of sin in Paul's flesh.
How long have you been laboring under your misunderstanding of Paul's words? Whoever has been teaching you needs a kick in the pants.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Soyeong
Well-Known Member
- Mar 10, 2015
- 12,433
- 4,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Single
I refer to it is "the Law of Moses" because there are many people who see "the Law of God" and think "the Ten Commandments" when I am referring to all the commandments that God gave through Moses. The OT also uses refers to the Law of God, the Law of the God, the Law of the Lord, and the Law of Moses, and in a number of cases these terms are used interchangeably and are different ways of referring to the same thing, so I'm not seeing any justification for interpreting these as referring to different categories of law. Paul spoke about the Law of Moses (1 Corinthians 9:9), the law of conscience (Romans 2:14-15), a law of works/works of the law (Romans 3:27), a law of faith (Romans 3:27), the Law of God (Romans 7:25), the law of sin (Romans 7:25), and the law of sin and death (Romans 8:2), so a number of these terms are referring to the same law, which I'd argue boil down to three distinct categories of the Law of God/Moses, the law of sin, and works of the law. In 1 Corinthians 9:9, Paul's example from the Law of Moses was not to muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain, which is a valid law in the NT, which Paul affirmed again in Timothy 5:18, so that would undermine the position that he was speaking against coming under the yoke of the Mosaic Law or that the yoke of the Mosaic Law was referring to ceremonial laws.
I have cited verses in both the OT and the NT that show that the Law of Moses was referred to interchangeably as the Law of God. Furthermore, God commanded everything in the Law of Moses, so I don't see any grounds for thinking that any part of the Law of Moses is not also the Law of God. On the other hand, you have simply assumed that there is a distinction between the Law of God and the Law of Moses and that that distinction is in regard to laws of ceremony and laws of separation without giving any sort of Scriptural support. You have not shown where the Bible lists which laws are part of the Law of Moses as opposed to being part of the Law of God, nor have you even shown where the Bible make any sort of distinction between the two. In addition, you still have establish that any of the authors of the Bible considered there to be subcategories of laws of ceremony and separation. I agree that some laws can be described a ceremonial laws just as some laws can be described as hand laws, but that does not establish that any of the authors of the Bible categorized God's laws in the same manner, and without doing that you are reading your position into the text rather than deriving it from the text.
Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers how to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example and he did not establish the New Covenant for the purpose of undermining anything that he spent his ministry teaching, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Jeremiah 31:33). That verse uses the Hebrew word "Torah", which always refers to the Law of Moses, so while I agree that we are under a New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant, we are nevertheless still under the same God with the same nature and therefore the same laws for how to express His nature. In Acts 21:20, Paul continued to live in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so he delighted in the same law as David.
In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus said that he came not to abolish the law, but the fulfill it, and warned that those who relaxed the least part of the law or told others to do the same would be called least in the Kingdom, so saying that any of God's laws were abolish in the NT is calling Jesus a liar and disregarding his warning. Likewise, in Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to abolish 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 becoming zealous for doing good in obedience to the Mosaic Law is what to means to believe in what Christ accomplish through the cross (Acts 21:20), while saying that he abolished any laws is undermining both what he accomplished through his ministry and the cross. In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct, so these laws have not been abolished. In 1 Peter 2:9-10, Gentiles are included as part of God's chosen people, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and a treasure of God's own possession, which are terms used to describe Israel (Deuteronomy 7:6), so Gentiles also have the delight of getting to obey the laws that God gave for how to fulfill those roles. It is contradictory for someone to want to become part of a holy nation while thinking that God's instructions for how to live as part of a holy nation have been abolished. Instructions for how to act in accordance with God's nature can't be abolished without first abolishing God.
In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, so works of the law are of works, while he said in Romans 3:31 that our faith upholds the Law of God, so he directly contrasted works of the law with the Law of God, which means that works of the law were not commanded by God, which is why Paul denied that they were of faith in God. 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) and to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6), so Paul's with the influencers in Galatians was not that they were teaching Gentiles how to follow Christ's example, but that they were wanting to require Gentiles to obey their works of the law in order to become justified, and I have not said anything in favor of obeying works of the law, but have only spoken in favor of obeying the Law of Moses.
All throughout the Bible, God wanted His people to repent and to return to obedience to His law, and even Christ began his ministry with that Gospel message, so it would be absurd to interpret Galatians 5:1-6 speaking against the Gospel message and saying that we will be cut off from Christ if we follow Christ, but rather Paul was only speaking against works of the law. In Psalms 119:29, David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Law of Moses, so that is what it means to be under grace, not the way to fall from grace. Likewise, in Romans 1:5, we have received grace in order to bring about the obedience of faith, not in order to bring about our fall from grace. In Titus 2:14, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, not that we have received grace in order to bring about our fall from grace. In Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus summarized the Mosaic Law as being about how to love God and our neighbor, so it is God's instructions for how to love, not something other than love. Obedience to the letter has always undermined both the intent of what God has commanded and why he has commanded it, which therefore leads to death just as assuredly as refusing to submit to the Mosaic Law. In Romans 2:26, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by their obedience to the Mosaic Law, which is the same way to tell for a Jew (Deuteronomy 10:12-16, 30:6).
In Romans 7:21-25, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God and served it with his mind, but directly contrasted that with the law of sin, which held him captive, and which he served with his flesh, so they can't both be referring to the same law. So while I agree that the Law of God is how we do know what sin is, that does not mean that that is what Paul was referring to by the law of sin. Paul said that the Law of God is good and that he wanted to do good, but that there was a law of sin that was working within his members to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do, so the law of sin is in opposition to Paul's desire to obey the Law of God. Verses that refer to a law that is sinful, that causes sin to increase, or that hinders our ability to obey the Law of God, should be interpreted as referring to the law of sin rather than to the Law of God, such a Romans 5:20, Romans 6:14, Romans 7:5, Galatians 2:19, Galatians 5:16-18, and 1 Corinthians 15:56. Those verses are referring to a law that is sinful, so to interpret any of them as referring to the Law of God is to say that it is sinful when Paul denied that it is sinful. For example, in Romans 7:5, a law that arouses sinful passions to bear fruit unto death is a law that is sinful and therefore is not referring to the Law of God.
To use another example, there is nothing inherent to God's command not to covet that causes coveting to increase, but rather that command should lead to us repent from coveting and cause sin to decrease. The problem is that there is something in us that causes us to want to do the opposite of what we are told to do, which causes all sorts covetousness, and this is what Paul referred to as the law of sin. So in Romans 7:12-13, Paul said that the Law of God is good and that it was not what was good that brought death to him, but rather it was the law of sin producing through what is good, so the law of sin acts upon what the Law of God to produce death. On the other hand, if the Law of God were the law of sin, then the Law of God would be responsible for producing death in us, and a law that produces death is not a law that is holy, righteous, and good.
What you said above completely ignores that Romans 7:21-25 directly contrasts the Law of God that he served with is mind with the law of sin that he serves with his flesh. In Romans 7:22-23, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God, but that he sees another law in his members warring against the law of his mind, so I really don't see how you can insist that this other law that is warring against the law of his mind is the same as the law of his mind. The fact that the Law of God carries the death penalty for transgressing does not mean that is what Paul was referring to as the law of sin and death because that is not what Paul described as its the function, but rather he described the law of sin as warring against the Law of God to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do. There is a significant different between a law that produces sin and death and a law that defines sin and carries the death penalty because the former is a law that is sinful while the latter is not, and the former is the law of sin while the latter is the Law of God.
Upvote
0
aiki
Regular Member
Okay. But since we've been talking about Paul's words, why not use his terms? The farther you move away from Paul's words, the more certain it is that you'll misunderstand his meaning. I do agree that the Ten Commandments do not cover all of the Moral Law laid out in God's word to us, however - which is, perhaps, why Paul doesn't refer to the Ten Commandments but more generically to the "law of God."
But we are talking about Paul's words, what he has said and means when referring to the "law of God." And Paul, it seems to me, is very precise and clear about his meaning, as I've already explained.
This obscures rather than clarifies Paul's meaning in Romans 7. It doesn't help to get at what he meant by the "law of God" and the "law of sin and death" by offering a brief survey of his use of the term "law" in other places in his writing. Paul is quite plain, I think, in the immediate context in which these two phrases appear that he was using them interchangeably. Knowing that he used the term "law" in Romans 3:27 or 1 Corinthians 9:9 in different ways and topical contexts from how he used it in Romans 7 adds nothing to an understanding of his words in Romans 7.
I have never asserted that the Mosaic Law was only ceremonial law. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the Mosaic Law encompasses three basic types of law:
1.) Moral laws: Universal laws governing moral and immoral action under which all of humanity is bound (do not fornicate, honor God, do not lie, do not murder, love your neighbor, etc).
2.) Laws of separation: Laws intended by God to distinguish His Chosen People from all other nations (no mixed fabrics, no eating shellfish or cloven-hoofed animals, no tattoos, Year of Jubilee, etc.)
3.) Laws of ceremony: Laws establishing the correct way to perform sacrifices to God, observe religious feasts and rituals, and serve in the Levitical order.
Those moral laws commanded in both Testaments are binding upon NT believers, yes, but the laws of separation and ceremony are abolished (See: Galatians 3, 4, Hebrews 6-9, Romans 3, 4, 5). I have found it is necessary to clarify this with those who are keen to press fellow believers into law-keeping, because many of them believe that the OT laws of separation and ceremony are still in force - as the Judaizers of Paul's day did. This may not be the case with you, and I hope it isn't, but your determination to refer to the "Law of Moses" in place of "the law of God" suggests you might have a Judaizer bent to your thinking.
God does not change in His essential nature, but His laws have. Some laws He issued only to the Israelites, not so much to reveal His nature, but simply to distinguish them from the pagan nations that surrounded the Israelites and to remind the Israelites at every turn that they were His people. For example, we don't learn much about the essential nature of God in His ordinance to the OT Israelites not to eat "unclean" animals. God, after all, was the One who made these "unclean" animals. As part of His "very good" Creation (Genesis 1:31), and devoid of any moral sense, they had no intrinsic fault or evil in them, so it is a mistake to think God is showing His holiness, or some such thing, in His command to His Chosen People to avoid eating these "unclean" animals. In fact, He rescinds this law in a brief exchange with Peter (Acts 10), pointing out that, as God, if He has declared an animal "clean," it is, just as declaring it "unclean" makes it so - forensically speaking.
Of course, God was speaking about Cornelius, a Gentile, whom Peter would have to shortly accept as a brother in Christ. Just as Peter had been declared righteous by God - again, forensically, not literally - by Peter's faith in Jesus, Cornelius, too, though a Gentile (and a Roman soldier, to boot) would also be justified by faith. Peter was going to have to change his thinking and attitude toward the "unclean" Gentiles (even the oppressive Roman ones) because God, through Christ, had instituted a New Covenant with all who would come to Him for redemption and adoption into His kingdom and family.
But God doesn't change, right? His laws, therefore, are as immutable as He is, correct? If we set aside His laws, we set aside Him? I don't see how this can be the case in the face of the profound changes that the Atonement of Christ and the New Covenant established in him have produced. God doesn't change in His essential nature, but His laws and relationship to humanity have clearly changed - and changed enormously - over time. So, it is a mistake to argue from God's laws to His essential nature, making both equally immutable. Some of God's laws, at least, have actually been abolished.
Ephesians 2:11-19
11 Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands—
12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,
15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,
16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.
17 AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR;
18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.
19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household,
Actually, I have. See my earlier posts. Or see the Scripture references I've given above. In any case, where is it written that I must show a list from the Bible of all the laws that have been abolished under the New Covenant? Says who? Paul is very clear that such a situation has occurred, but he makes no effort to stipulate an exhaustive list of which laws, exactly, have been set aside under the New Covenant. It appears he believed that his readers could extrapolate from what he had written to them to such a list, castigating the Galatian believers, in particular, for failing to do so. I don't, then, see any good reason to provide you with the list you demand. If you want one, do as the Galatians ought to have done and reason out from what Paul has written about the abolished "law of commandments contained in ordinances" what the list is.
This is called specious reasoning. Just because I might use a different term than the next guy to refer to the same thing doesn't mean I am reading my "position" into the biblical text. And, so far, you haven't come anywhere close to showing that I have.
I don't really follow your logic here at all. If I call my dog's ball a "ball" but my wife calls it a "round toy," are we just reading into reality our view of the ball? Of course not. Despite the difference in our terms, the ball is what we are both referring to, not some alternate reality we are forcing upon the dog's spherical toy.
And I haven't ever said that the terms I've used to describe the Mosaic Law are the very same terms the authors of the Bible used. How would that even be possible, given our separation in time, and language, and vantage point from which we understand Christian doctrine? Did Paul possess the entire NT as I do today? No. Had he the long history of doctrinal discussion and codification that has happened in the intervening time between his day and mine? No. Why in the world, then, should I expect that he would use the same terms that I do? Yikes.
Most of which is irrelevant since it Paul's words we are considering.
??? Who has said otherwise? It is this sort of comment from you that reveals you're not really carefully considering what I've been writing to you. As far as I can tell, you're just in fortify-and-defend mode, not hear-and-consider.
??? Again, where have I written any such thing? You are clearly not actually understanding what I'm writing.
All of the Law of Moses came from God, so it is, obviously, all the Law of God. But the Mosaic Law in the OT included laws that have been abolished under the New Covenant, specifically the laws pertaining to ceremony/ritual and separation (or whatever alternate terms you prefer to use). That these laws have been set aside in no way implies that they weren't from God. Between the OT and NT there is a difference in the scope of the Law of God, not a difference in its origin. If you'd just read more carefully, I wouldn't have to explain these rather obvious things...
No, Jesus did not spend his ministry doing any such thing. Instead, he was constantly teaching that he had come as the atoning "Lamb of God" precisely because the Mosaic Law had shown all those who tried to keep it incapable of doing so to God's standard - which is to say, perfectly. He dealt with Jews within their own OT context, repeatedly showing them to be falling short of what God required of them. The story of the Rich Young Ruler is a great example; as are the many exchanges he had with the hypocritical religious leaders of his day. The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 goes further, establishing such a high standard for human moral conduct that it was evident to all listening that it could never be attained. Why? Because Jesus was teaching that keeping the law was not the ultimate way to reconciliation and fellowship with God; that he had come to fulfill and replace the letter of the law with himself.
Matthew 5:20
20 "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
John 10:7-10
7 So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
8 "All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.
9 "I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.
10 "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.
John 8:12
12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
John 14:6
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
It is in and through Christ that we come into relationship with God. The Mosaic Law has no power whatever to do so - as the record of the OT bears out.
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
aiki
Regular Member
And this is the same Paul who wrote:
Romans 3:19-28
19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.
20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—
22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.
28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Ephesians 2:13-15
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,
15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,
Colossians 2:20-23
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
21 "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!"
22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?
23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.
Galatians 3:2-3
2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?
3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
Galatians 3:23-26
23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.
24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
What Jewish laws Paul may have maintained, he did not in the slightest expect others to also maintain, but wrote rather vociferously against OT law-keeping as the basis for fellowship with God.
But, having perfectly fulfilled the law, he negated it, establishing a New Covenant in himself, not the law, under which all born-again believers are now related to God. Jesus came to fulfill the law in order to abolish it as the way to reconciliation and relationship with God. It is slippery language to make it seem he could not - and did not - do both.
Acts 21:20-21
20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law;
21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.
This was said about Paul. He was the one with this reputation. If you are going to make verse 20 prescriptive, why not the next verse, too? Of course, that would put a really big crimp in your point of view...
There is nothing that is prescriptive in the slightest about verse 20. The verse does NOT tell us what we ought to think or do but ONLY describes the new Jewish believers who were "zealous for the Law." The verse certainly does not tell us what obedience to the Mosaic Law means for Christians generally. Such an idea as you've asserted about the verse is the very eisegesis of which you've accused me! Description does not equal prescription; you don't get an "ought" from an "is."
No one has said they were abolished. Only the laws of ceremony and separation are abolished; God's Moral Law remains entirely in force. This has been said to you repeatedly. Why are you arguing as though it has not? Again, you seem not to be really understanding what is written to you. And no law-keeping connects us to God or keeps us connected. Obeying God is the by-product, the fruit, of life in Jesus, not the means of life in him or the sum-total of fellowship with God.
Upvote
0
aiki
Regular Member
More slippery language here. Paul did not contrast a law of faith with a law of works, as though there are a number of these types of laws. There is only one law of faith and one law of works. The "law of works" is the Law of God which is entirely about doing or avoiding certain things, obeying commands, performing good, God-honoring deeds (aka works). Paul, then, was contrasting the Law of God with the law of faith, explaining that it is only by the law of faith in Christ Jesus that we obtain a righteous standing before God and by this standing, His acceptance. Your idea, then, that the "works of the law were not commanded by God" is bizarre and badly misunderstands Paul's teaching.
Romans 3:21-31
21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
Not a law but THE Law. Apart from the Law of God the righteousness of God has been manifested. This rather puts a serious knot in your ideas, Soyeong. There is no "a law."
22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;
26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.
Paul here indicates that no man has whereof to boast in his deeds, in his keeping of God's Law, because no man is justified before God except in the basis of their faith in Christ Jesus as Saviour and Lord.
28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
Again, not "a law" but "the Law." Paul has only one law in mind and that is the Law of God given through Moses.
29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,
30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.
Justification, Paul explains here, has nothing to do with keeping a law like circumcision (a law given in the Mosaic Law, not some "law of works" you've imagined). It is solely by faith in Christ that anyone is justified.
31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.
Paul asks here if the Law is to be ignored, nullified, set aside, and he declares that it ought to be confirmed. But he cannot mean confirmed as essential to coming into, or remaining in, relationship with God, which he had just explained was accomplished ONLY in and through faith in Christ. Issued from God, the Law of God is good in and of itself and this ought to be confirmed. But this is all Paul can be asserting in verse 31.
Romans 4:1-5
1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?
2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."
4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.
5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
Christ imparts his perfect righteousness to us, which we need in order to be accepted by God, not on the basis of our law-keeping, but on the basis of our faith in Christ. This principle of righteousness-by-faith was working even in Abraham's life.
This is called equivocation. Only if one takes your view of "works of the law" being different from the works arising from obeying the Mosaic Law do your words here make any kind of sense. But for the reasons I've already laid out, such a view as you hold would not be the normal one the average reader of Paul's words would take. It looks to me, then, that you're both in favor and not in favor of the same thing! Yikes.
Which obedience is indicated by what, exactly? By good works done in accord with the Mosaic Law. And this is why, for Paul, obeying the Mosaic Law, the Law of God, is synonymous with doing "the works of the law."
I don't have time to write more to you in reply to your post. I think, though, that I've said enough. More back-and-forth will be futile until your understanding of both Paul and I improves.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Soyeong
Well-Known Member
- Mar 10, 2015
- 12,433
- 4,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Single
The ESV, YLT, and a number of other translations say "a law of works", but that is moot because my point was not to suggest that there is more than one law of works or faith, but simply to show that there are two distinct categories of law being contrasted in Romans 3:27, and that works of the are the law of works while Paul said that our faith upholds the Law of God in Romans 3:31, so it is the law of faith. Paul said our faith upholds the Law of God, so I do not see how you can consider that to be contrasting the Law of God with he law of faith. While the Law of God does involve doing works, that does not mean that we should assume that is what Paul meant by the phrase "works of the law". There is no definitive article in the Greek, so it is literally translated as "works of law", which means that it does not refer to a definitive set of laws, such as THE Law of Moses, but rather Paul used it as a catch-all phrase to refer to a large body of Jewish oral laws, traditions, rulings, and fences which existed in the 1st century, which were being taught that people needed to obey in order to become justified, and which would eventually be codified in the Talmud. For example, in Acts 10:28, Peter referred to a law that forbad Jews from visiting or associating with Gentiles, which is not a law found anywhere in the Law of Moses, and is therefore a man-made law. It was this law that Peter was obeying in Galatians 2:11-16 when he stopped visiting or associating with the Gentiles, and by doing so he was giving credibility to those who were wanting to require Gentiles to obey their works of the law in order to become justified, which is why Paul rebuked him and reiterated that we are justified by faith, not by works of the law. This is also how the phrase is used in the Qumran Text 4QMMT.
Romans 3:21 (YLT) And now apart from law hath the righteousness of God been manifested, testified to by the law and the prophets,
You are making a big deal out of an underlined word that isn't there in the Greek. The Law and the Prophets testify that the righteousness of God comes through faith in Christ for all who believe, so this has always been the one and only way to become righteous, and I have not stated anything otherwise, so this does not put any knot in my ideas.
There can be reasons for obey the Law of Moses other than trying to earn our justification, especially because it was never given as a means of doing that, so verses that speak against earning our justification by our works should not be mistaken as speaking against our justification requiring our works for some other reason, such as faith.
In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the law, so only those who have faith will obey it and will be justified by the same faith, which is why Paul could say in Romans 2:13 that only doers of the law will be justified while also using Abraham's example in Romans 4:1-5 to deny that our justification can be earned as a wage. In Romans 3:28, Paul said that we are justified by faith apart from works of the law, which is true insofar as there are no works that we can do in order to earn our justification, however, in Romans 3:31, Paul did not want us to conclude that our faith abolishes our need to obey the Law of God, but rather our faith upholds it, which is true insofar as the same faith by which we are justified is also expressed as obedience to it.
In James 2:21-23, Abraham was justified by his works when he offered Isaac, his faith was active along with his works, and his faith completed his works, so he was justified by his works insofar as they were an expression of his faith, but not insofar as they were earning a wage. Again, Paul said that only doers of the law will be justified, so while I agree that obedience to God's law has nothing to do with earning our justification, it is false that it has nothing to do with our justification. Every example of justifying faith listed in Hebrews 11 is also an example of obedience to God. Abraham also kept God's laws (Genesis 26:5). Jesus expressed his righteousness by living in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so that is also what is being gifted to us when we are imparted with his righteousness.
Again, you are making an unfounded assumption that because works are done in accordance with the Mosaic Law that that is what Paul meant by the phrase "works of law" in place of deriving what Paul meant by the phrase by how he used it.
Upvote
0
Soyeong
Well-Known Member
- Mar 10, 2015
- 12,433
- 4,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Single
Paul spoke about different categories of law sometimes within the same sentence, so the point is that every instance of the word "law" needs to be evaluated which law he was referring to, so I interpret a verse as referring to the Law of Moses only when I think that a case can be made that that is the law he was referring to. There are many places where the Law of Moses is referred to as the Law of God interchangeably, so I don't see any problem with using them interchangeably.
I have no problem with using different terms to refer to the same categories, but what I am wanting you to establish is that the content of the categories that you are using are the same thing as those used by the authors of the Bible. If Paul used a different set a categories that don't correspond to the same categories that you are using and if he spoke about a specific category with a specific set of laws in mind, then we need to have the same set of laws in mind in order to correctly understand him, and interpreting him as referring to one of your categories would be in error. You would be inserting your categories rather than deriving them from the ones that Paul used, so in order to avoid that error, you first need to establish that your categories are the same as ones he used, which they definitely are not. The categories used by the Bible do not carry any sort of connotation of some being moral while other are not and there is no example in the Bible of it ever being considered to be moral to disobey any of God's laws.
Galatians 3-4, Hebrews 6-9, and Romans 3-5, do not speak about any of God's laws being abolished, but rather Romans 3:31 specifically denies that our faith abolishes God's law, and in Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law and warned against relaxing the least part of the law or teaching others to do the same, so by interpreting those chapters as speaking about any of God's laws being abolished, you are calling Jesus a liar and disregarding his warning. In Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for them was if they taught against obeying the Law of Moses, so even the chapters you listed were speaking about some of God's laws being abolished, then according to God, we should disregard what they said. The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so we should be quicker to disregard everything that any man has said than to disregard anything that God has commanded, though the reality is that Paul was a servant of God, so he never spoke against obeying any of God's laws.
God's laws teach us about his nature, so His laws can't change unless His eternal nature changes. Holiness is in regard to separation and it is an aspect of God's nature, and the only way that these laws can be abolished is to first abolish God's holiness. In 1 Peter 1:16, Peter said that we should be holy for God is holy, which refers to laws in Leviticus that teach us about God's eternal holiness, that you listed under 2.) as being are abolished. For example, these verses as clearly associating God's holiness with refraining from eating unclean animals:
For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming thing that crawls on the ground. 45 For I am the Lord who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.”
Acts 10:14-15 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.”
In the above verses, God only rebuked Peter for his use of the word "common", not his use of the word "unclean", so he correctly identified the unclean animals as unclean, but was only rebuked for incorrectly identifying the clean animals as common. Peter interpreted his vison three times as being in regard to incorrectly identifying Gentiles and said nothing about any of God's laws being rescinded.
Indeed, God doesn't change, therefore His laws are immutable as He is (Psalms 119:160). Ephesians 2:11-19 is referring to a law that has changed, therefore it could not be referring to any of God's immutable laws. God did not give any laws for the purpose of creating a dividing wall of hostility, but rather His law instructs us to love our neighbor as ourselves, so it wouldn't make sense to interpret that as referring to any of God's laws, but rather there were a number of other categories of law that Paul spoke about that were a dividing wall of hostility.
Then by all means please quote something alone the lines where the Bible says that a particular law is part of the Law of Moses, but not the Law of God, or vice versa. You don't have to show a list if you don't want to, but you do need to show a list if you want to establish that your categorize are the same as Paul's and that they are not entirely your own creation. In Romans 3:31, Paul is very clear that our faith does not abolish God's law, so that has not and will never occur.
Likewise, "law of commandments contained in ordinances" does not refer to any of God's laws, but the our penalties for breaking them. Laws themselves were never nailed to crosses, but what we nailed to crosses were the charges that were against them that announced why they were being executed (Matthew 27:37). 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 had nothing to do with ending any of God's eternal laws. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that JEsus gave himself to free us from any laws, but in order to redeem us from all lawlessness.
I see no reason to think that Paul's words were an exception to where it is used everywhere else in teh Bible.
If you agree that the Law of Moses is the Law of God, then you shouldn't have a problem with interpreting Paul speaking about the Law of God as referring to the Law of Moses.
You said:
This is essentially just assuming that there is a distinction between the Law of God and the Law of Mosses because Paul did not write "the Law of Moses" when he could have. You've also incorrectly identified Paul's problem with the influencers as if teaching Gentiles to obey what God has commanded is somehow a negative thing. In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the Mosaic Law, so the NT doesn't do that.
Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand (Matthew 4:17-23) 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. Furthermore, Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, and as his followers we are told to follow his example, (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6), so Jesus spent his ministry teaching how to obey it by word and by example. In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, it says that the Mosaic Law is not too difficult to keep and that obedience bring s life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! So it was presented as a choice and a possibility, not as the need for perfect obedience. Likewise, in 1 John 5:3, to love God is to obey His commandments, which are not burdensome. If we needed to have perfect obedience for some strange reason, then repentance would have no value, but the consistent message throughout the Bible is the call for repentance, not perfect obedience. Everything Jesus taught in Matthew 5-7 was rooted in the OT. Jesus expressed the exact nature of God by living in sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law, so he is the living embodiment of it, and replacing the it with himself would still be the Mosaic Law.
Are you taking the position that the Israelites had no idea how to have a relationship with God?
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
