Who is Under the Law?

Soyeong said:

While I agree that we are not under the law, Paul spoke about multiple categories of law other than the Law of God such as the law of sin and works of the law, so we should be careful to discern which law he was referring to, and I made the case in post #570 for way I think that Romans 6:14 should be interpreted as referring to the law of sin rather than the Law of God. In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so the has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith, and which is the reason why Paul said in Romans 6:15 that those are who under grace are not permitted to transgress it. Likewise, in Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know Him, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the Law of God is to graciously teach us how to know God and Jesus, which is His gift of eternal life (John 17:3).

In 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul said in a parallel statement that we are not outside the Law of God but under the Law of Christ, so he equated the two.
The reason why the Law of God leads us to Christ is because it is God's instructions for how to know him, but the reason that it leads us to Christ is not so that we can reject everything that he taught and go back to becoming doers of what it reveals to be wickedness. The fact that we do not have a license to transgress the Law of God means that we are under it.

Click to expand...

For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. Rom6:14

You agree, sin is the transgression of the law handed down at Sanai.
The legalistic law of rite, ritual and ceremony could faultlessly be obeyed, even by the worst of sinners(Phil3:6) therefore, sin need not be anyone's master where that law was concerned, for it did not have to be sinned against.
So what law was sin the master of people? Only the moral law is left isnt it

under grace1 said:

For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. Rom6:14

You agree, sin is the transgression of the law handed down at Sanai.
The legalistic law of rite, ritual and ceremony could faultlessly be obeyed, even by the worst of sinners(Phil3:6) therefore, sin need not be anyone's master where that law was concerned, for it did not have to be sinned against.
So what law was sin the master of people? Only the moral law is left isnt it

Click to expand...

What is your understanding of the law of sin as it relates to the Law of God?

Soyeong said:

What is your understanding of the law of sin as it relates to the Law of God?

Click to expand...

because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. Rom8:2

Link it to the previous chapter, there was no chapter headings when Paul wrote his letters, what was the law of sin and death in ch7?

under grace1 said:

because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. Rom8:2

Click to expand...

The Law of the Spirit has set us free from the law of sin and death, so why are you interpreting this passage as if we have been set free from the Law of Gdo instead?

under grace1 said:

Link it to the previous chapter, there was no chapter headings when Paul wrote his letters, what was the law of sin and death in ch7?

Click to expand...

In Romans 7-8:2, Paul said that the Law of God is good, that he wanted to do good, that he delighted in obeying it, and that he served it with his mind in contrast with the law of sin, which was working within his members to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do, which was was waging war against the law of his mind, which he served with his flesh, which held him captive, and which the Law of the Spirit has free us from. The Law of God leads us to do what is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12) while the law of sin leads us in the opposite direction by stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death (Romans 7:5). So verses that refer to something that would be absurd for Paul to delight in doing should to be interpreted as referring to the Law of God while verses that refer to law that is sinful, that causes sin to increase, or that hinders us from obeying the Law of God should be interpreted as referring to the law of sin. For example, in Romans 6:14, Paul described the law that we are not under as being a law where sin had dominion over him and it would be absurd for Paul to delight in sin having dominion over him, but rather that is the role of the law of sin.

Soyeong said:

, Paul described the law that we are not under as being a law where sin had dominion over him

Click to expand...

Correct, which law did sin have dominion over him?
Sin did not have dominion over him concerning the legalistic law of rite, ritual and ceremony did it, for he could faultlessly obey that law(Phil3:6)
So, which law did sin have dominion over Paul?
Which law in ch7 was the law of sin and death to Paul?

Soyeong said:

The Law of God leads us to do what is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12) while the law of sin leads us in the opposite direction by stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death (Romans 7:5). So verses that refer to something that would be absurd for Paul to delight in doing should to be interpreted as referring to the Law of God

Click to expand...

But sin, taking occasion by the commandment wrought in me all manner of concupiscence Rom7:8
Which commandment?

under grace1 said:

Correct, which law did sin have dominion over him?
Sin did not have dominion over him concerning the legalistic law of rite, ritual and ceremony did it, for he could faultlessly obey that law(Phil3:6)
So, which law did sin have dominion over Paul?
Which law in ch7 was the law of sin and death to Paul?

Click to expand...

The Law of God leads us to do what is holy, righteous, and good, so it is a law where holiness, righteousness, and goodness have dominion over us whereas the law of sin leads us in the opposite direction by stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, so it is the law where din had domino override us.

under grace1 said:

But sin, taking occasion by the commandment wrought in me all manner of concupiscence Rom7:8
Which commandment?

Click to expand...

The Law of God is not sinful but how we know what sin is (Romans 7:7). When our sin is revealed, then that leads us to repent and causes sin to decrease, whereas the law of sin stirs up sinful passions in on order to bear fruit unto death (Romans 7:5), so it is sinful and causes sin to increase (Romans 5:20). For example, there is nothing intrinsic to the command against coveting that causes coveting to increase, but rather that command leads us away from coveting and causes coveting to decrease. The problem is that the law of sin working within our members is reacting to the Law of God in order to cause coveting to increase.

Soyeong said:

The Law of God leads us to do what is holy, righteous, and good, so it is a law where holiness, righteousness, and goodness have dominion over us whereas the law of sin leads us in the opposite direction by stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, so it is the law where din had domino override us.


The Law of God is not sinful but how we know what sin is (Romans 7:7). When our sin is revealed, then that leads us to repent and causes sin to decrease, whereas the law of sin stirs up sinful passions in on order to bear fruit unto death (Romans 7:5), so it is sinful and causes sin to increase (Romans 5:20). For example, there is nothing intrinsic to the command against coveting that causes coveting to increase, but rather that command leads us away from coveting and causes coveting to decrease. The problem is that the law of sin working within our members is reacting to the Law of God in order to cause coveting to increase.

Click to expand...

You are ignoring my points
Sinfull passions are aroused in us by the law Rom7:5
Which law?
For sin, taking occasion by the commandent(thou shalt not covet) wrought in me all manner of concupiscence/sinfull passions verse8

Soyeong said:

For example, there is nothing intrinsic to the command against coveting that causes coveting to increase,

Click to expand...

Isn't there?

under grace1 said:

You are ignoring my points

Click to expand...

What am I ignoring?

under grace1 said:

Sinfull passions are aroused in us by the law Rom7:5
Which law?

Click to expand...

In Romans 7:22, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God, so if Romans 7:5 were also 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 would be absurd, but rather that is the role of the law of sin.

under grace1 said:

For sin, taking occasion by the commandent(thou shalt not covet) wrought in me all manner of concupiscence/sinfull passions verse8What I am

Click to expand...

There is nothing intrinsic to the command against coveting that causes coveting to increase, but rather that command causes coveting to increase. The problem is that there law of sin working within our members is reacting to the command against coveting in order to cause coveting to increase.

Soyeong said:

The Law of God leads us to do what is holy, righteous, and good, so it is a law where holiness, righteousness, and goodness have dominion over us whereas the law of sin leads us in the opposite direction by stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, so it is the law where din had domino override us.


The Law of God is not sinful but how we know what sin is (Romans 7:7). When our sin is revealed, then that leads us to repent and causes sin to decrease, whereas the law of sin stirs up sinful passions in on order to bear fruit unto death (Romans 7:5), so it is sinful and causes sin to increase (Romans 5:20). For example, there is nothing intrinsic to the command against coveting that causes coveting to increase, but rather that command leads us away from coveting and causes coveting to decrease. The problem is that the law of sin working within our members is reacting to the Law of God in order to cause coveting to increase.

Click to expand...

Someone says to a young teenager

‘’The righteous/justified will obey the TC,

Let us suppose the young teenager is not in ignorance as to what is entailed in obeying the TC, they know no watered down version of them exists. Before them stands the tenth commandment. They must NOT dwell on any impure thought. What will go through the young teenagers mind?



‘’I must not dwell on any impure thought, if I do it shows I Am not justified before God and will end up in hell’’

Im sure the young man would be petrified of such thoughts, what could you fear more, as a believer than being cast into hell for eternity?

Can you escape thinking of what you fear, or, will thoughts of what you fear consume you? Speaking for myself, when I was young, the more I feared something, the more wild imaginations went through my mind concerning what I feared, and so, concerning the young teenager:

‘’I don’t want to go to hell, I must not dwell on any impure thought, I must not’’



What will be the result? Well it shouldn‘t take much discernment to know. But Paul can explain it. In Rom7:7-11 he is speaking of the time the law came to him, as a thirteen year old, for that is when a young Jewish lad made a personal commitment to God:

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. Rom7:7&8

under grace1 said:

Someone says to a young teenager

‘’The righteous/justified will obey the TC,

Let us suppose the young teenager is not in ignorance as to what is entailed in obeying the TC, they know no watered down version of them exists. Before them stands the tenth commandment. They must NOT dwell on any impure thought. What will go through the young teenagers mind?



‘’I must not dwell on any impure thought, if I do it shows I Am not justified before God and will end up in hell’’

Im sure the young man would be petrified of such thoughts, what could you fear more, as a believer than being cast into hell for eternity?

Can you escape thinking of what you fear, or, will thoughts of what you fear consume you? Speaking for myself, when I was young, the more I feared something, the more wild imaginations went through my mind concerning what I feared, and so, concerning the young teenager:

‘’I don’t want to go to hell, I must not dwell on any impure thought, I must not’’



What will be the result? Well it shouldn‘t take much discernment to know. But Paul can explain it. In Rom7:7-11 he is speaking of the time the law came to him, as a thirteen year old, for that is when a young Jewish lad made a personal commitment to God:

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. Rom7:7&8

Click to expand...

Without the law of sin, sin would be dead (Romans 7:8), so the command against coveting would simply eliminate all coveting. The reason why the command against coveting does not eliminate all coveting is because the law of sin working within us reacts to that command by causing us to want to do the opposite. The problem isn't with the command against coveting itself but with the law of sin that is working within our members taking the occasion through the command to cause conventing to increase. Likewise, with the teenager there is command innate to the command against coveting is causing coveting to increase, but rather the problem is that the law of sin is causing the them to react to the command in a way that is causing coveting to increase. In Romans 7:12-13, Paul said that the Law of God is good and that it was not that which is good that brought death to him, but the law of sin was producing death in him through that which is good.

Soyeong said:

Without the law of sin, sin would be dead (Romans 7:8), so the command against coveting would simply eliminate all coveting. The reason why the command against coveting does not eliminate all coveting is because the law of sin working within us reacts to that command by causing us to want to do the opposite. The problem isn't with the command against coveting itself but with the law of sin that is working within our members taking the occasion through the command to cause conventing to increase. Likewise, with the teenager there is command innate to the command against coveting is causing coveting to increase, but rather the problem is that the law of sin is causing the them to react to the command in a way that is causing coveting to increase. In Romans 7:12-13, Paul said that the Law of God is good and that it was not that which is good that brought death to him, but the law of sin was producing death in him through that which is good.

Click to expand...

The law is indeed holy, just and good. However, sin takes occasion of what is holy, just and good to arouse sinfull passions in us, as Paul says.
Why? Because of your fear of the penalty for transgression/being under the law, hence:
For sin shall no longer be your master for you are not under law/righteousness of obeying the law, but under grace/righteousness of faith in Christ

Incidentally, I wonder how many who say: ''The justified will obey the law'' holds the law to the pristene level Paul did in Rom7:8
No dwelling on any impure thought allowed:
Thou shalt NOT

Soyeong said:

Agreed. It is by the Law of God that we have knowledge of what sin is, so someone who has been set free from being under it has become a slave to sin.

Click to expand...

No, He that commits sin is a slave to it and under the Law.

HIM said:

No, He that commits sin is a slave to it and under the Law.

Click to expand...

The Law of God leads us to do what is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), so it is a law where holiness, righteousness, and goodness has dominion over us while the law of sin leads us in the opposite direction by stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death (Romans 7:5), so it is a law where sin has dominion over us. In Romans 6:14, it describes the law that we are not under as being a law where sin had dominion over us, so it is speaking about the law of sin, not the Law of God. In Romans 6:15, being under grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, and in Romans 7:7, the Law of God is not sinful but how we know what sin is, so we are still under the Law of God, but are not under the law of sin, which is sinful. In Romans 6:16, Paul was contrasting these two directions by saying that we are slaves to the one that we obey, either obedience to the law of sin, which leads to death, or obedience to the Law of God, which leads to righteousness. In Romans 6:17-23, we are not under to present ourselves as slaves to impurity, lawlessness, and sin, but are now to present 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 being a doer of the Law of God is His gift of eternal life. Someone who has been set free from being under the law of sin has been set free from sin and death whereas someone who has been set free from being under the Law of God has need set free from righteousness, sanctification, and eternal life in Christ, so we should wisely choose which one we want to obey.

LoricaLady said:

When people say the Law has been done away with, they quote Paul, not the Father or the Son.

Click to expand...

"done away with" is a strawman. If we quote Christ he came to fulfill, he did not come to abolish. The question is, what does a fulfilled law look like? Is circumcision fulfilled? Is the sacrifice fulfilled? They are not "done away with" but under Christ, our instruction is not dependent upon the legal code, but on deeper values. is do not murder, lie, steal fulfilled? These are moral thresholds, and yes, those thresholds are not based on the legal code anymore. We still value not murdering, lying and stealing, but those are downstream effects of sin, not the root. Christ is interested in the root, which is of the heart.

Asking "is do not murder" a sin or not is the wrong question. of course it is, but it is no longer positioned as a moral threshold as the new understands the act of sin happening long before the act of murder. murder is still sinful, but it is no longer a moral threshold so based on moral thresholds, the 10 no longer hold. Murdering does not bar me from salvation (albeit reflects an egregious state of my heart), and not murdering also does not guarantee me salvation (and my heart may still be in an egregious state). So where the 10 are principally good, their legal code is no longer binding. This shouldn't be confused with we are allowed to murder, steal and lie, but rather murdering, stealing and lying are no longer the thresholds.

So Is sabbath fulfilled? That needs unpacking as that wording can be used as a strawman. Sabbath legal code is fulfilled. The threshold for keeping sabbath holy was a prohibition of work, but that threshold is not good enough, and we know the prohibition of work itself is not what gives us rest. The Sabbath legal code is a physical analog for a spiritual principle (just like circumcision and the sacrafice). look at the animals, they are commanded to rest too, but not because they take rest (they have no authority to take rest themselves), but because it is given to them by one with authority. There is only one with the authority to give the rest we seek. He claims the title himself in "Lord of the Sabbath," which is an authority claim, not merely a title. So what is kept holy? The creation account is a salvation metaphor where we are the dark vessels, light is spoken into and a work is started in us that ends in rest and calling us Holy (2 Cor 4:6 affirms this). To keep us holy, we do not stop work once a week; we put our faith in Christ, who makes us holy. The legal code of the 4th has been made obsolete as is the entire 10 commandments and law. not to say that we are free to sin (which is a strawman), if law is made obsolete doesn't mean we are lawless, it means we are under a better way.

DamianWarS said:

"done away with" is a strawman. If we quote Christ he came to fulfill, he did not come to abolish. The question is, what does a fulfilled law look like?

Click to expand...

Jesus did not invent the concept of fulfilling the law, so we should seek to understand what it means to fulfill the law in the content of Judaism before Jesus said that he came to fulfill it in the way that his audience would have understood it. There is much discussion in the Talmud about how to fulfill the law in the sense of how to correctly meet our obligation to it. "To fulfill the law' mean "to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be" (NAS Greek Lexicon: pleroo), so after Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law he then proceeded to fulfill it throughout the rest of the chapter by correcting what the people had heard being taught and by teaching how to correctly obey it as should be. According to Galatians 5:14, loving our neighbor fulfills the entire law, so again in regard to correctly obeying it, moreover, it refers to something that countless people of have done and should continue to do in perpetuity, not to something unique that only Jesus did. In Galatians 6:2, bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ, so we should interpret that in the same way as we interpret fulfilling the Law of Moses.

DamianWarS said:

Is circumcision fulfilled? Is the sacrifice fulfilled? They are not "done away with" but under Christ, our instruction is not dependent upon the legal code, but on deeper values. is do not murder, lie, steal fulfilled? These are moral thresholds, and yes, those thresholds are not based on the legal code anymore. We still value not murdering, lying and stealing, but those are downstream effects of sin, not the root. Christ is interested in the root, which is of the heart.

Click to expand...

God's way is the way to know Him and Jesus by experiencing embodying His character traits, which is the narrow way to eternal life (John 17:3), and God's character traits are the deeper values that are the basis for morality. It would be overwhelming to us for God to exhaustively teach us how to embody His character traits in ever possible situation, so the point is to teach us how to embody them by teaching us a limited set of instructions that all have them in common. If we correctly understand a character trait, then it will lead us to take actions that embody it in accordance with God's instructions even in situations that God's instructions do not specifically address, but correctly understanding a character trait will never lead us away from following the instructions that were given to teach us how to embody it.

DamianWarS said:

Asking "is do not murder" a sin or not is the wrong question. of course it is, but it is no longer positioned as a moral threshold as the new understands the act of sin happening long before the act of murder. murder is still sinful, but it is no longer a moral threshold so based on moral thresholds, the 10 no longer hold. Murdering does not bar me from salvation (albeit reflects an egregious state of my heart), and not murdering also does not guarantee me salvation (and my heart may still be in an egregious state). So where the 10 are principally good, their legal code is no longer binding. This shouldn't be confused with we are allowed to murder, steal and lie, but rather murdering, stealing and lying are no longer the thresholds.

Click to expand...

Sin is what is contrary to God's character traits such as with unrighteousness being sin and sin is the transgression of the Law of God because it was given in order to teach us how to embody His character traits. Nowhere does the Bible say that murder is no longer are moral threshold or that the 10 no longer hold. Jesus saves us from our sin (Matthew 1:21), so him graciously teaching us to be a doer of the Law of God is intrinsically the way that he is giving us his gift of saving us from not being a doer of it.

DamianWarS said:

So Is sabbath fulfilled? That needs unpacking as that wording can be used as a strawman. Sabbath legal code is fulfilled. The threshold for keeping sabbath holy was a prohibition of work, but that threshold is not good enough, and we know the prohibition of work itself is not what gives us rest. The Sabbath legal code is a physical analog for a spiritual principle (just like circumcision and the sacrafice). look at the animals, they are commanded to rest too, but not because they take rest (they have no authority to take rest themselves), but because it is given to them by one with authority. There is only one with the authority to give the rest we seek. He claims the title himself in "Lord of the Sabbath," which is an authority claim, not merely a title. So what is kept holy? The creation account is a salvation metaphor where we are the dark vessels, light is spoken into and a work is started in us that ends in rest and calling us Holy (2 Cor 4:6 affirms this). To keep us holy, we do not stop work once a week; we put our faith in Christ, who makes us holy.

Click to expand...

We embody what we believe to be true about God through our works such as with James 2:18 saying that he would show his faith through his works, or in other words, the way to believe in God is by walking in His way. For example, by being a doer of good works in obedience to God's law we are embodying His goodness, which is why our good works bring glory to Him (Matthew 5:16), and by embodying God's goodness we are also embodying the belief that God is good. Likewise, the way to believe that God is compassionate is by being compassionate (Luke. 6:36), the way to believe that God is holy is by being a doer of His instructions for how to be holy as He is holy (1 Peter 1:16), and so forth, which includes keeping God's Sabbaths holy (Leviticus 19:2-3). The only way that we should cease to follow God's instructions for how to be holy as He is holy would be if He were to cease to be holy.

This is also exactly the same as the way to believe in the Son, who is the radiance of God's glory and the exact likeness of His character (Hebrews 1:3), which he embodied through his works by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Law of God. This also why there are many verses that connect tour belief in God with our obedience to Him, such as with Revelation 14:12 where those who kept faith in Jesus are the same as those who kept God's commandments and it is by this faith alone that we are made righteous and holy and attain the other character traits of God. To have a character trait means to be a doer of works that embody that traits, so it would be contradictory for someone to be made holy apart from being made into someone who is a doer of God's instructions for how to be holy as He is holy.

DamianWarS said:

The legal code of the 4th has been made obsolete as is the entire 10 commandments and law. not to say that we are free to sin (which is a strawman), if law is made obsolete doesn't mean we are lawless, it means we are under a better way.

Click to expand...

One thing can only make another thing obsolete to the extent that it has cumulative functionality, so a computer makes a typewriter obsolete but does not make a plow obsolete, so if faith in Christ involved doing something different that was not cumulative with keeping the Sabbath holy, then it could not make it obsolete.

Soyeong said:

so if faith in Christ involved doing something different that was not cumulative with keeping the Sabbath holy, then it could not make it obsolete.

Click to expand...

circumcision is cumulative while at the same time subtractive of legal code, this is the same with the sacrafice (to name some big ones) if you can champion these values then how is it you cannot apply the same logic to Sabbath legal code or how is it you can accuse me (implicitly) of diminishing it?

would you prefer this paraphrase "Christ did not come to diminish the law, he came to magnify it" because I do see hidden in your language the continued strawman of accusing to appolish. do you truely accept that all of law is magnified through Christ or is it only the 10? because there is a consistency problem in your approach and it feels like it's in a 10 commandment vacuum since your logic falls apart when considered for the whole.

DamianWarS said:

circumcision is cumulative while at the same time subtractive of legal code, this is the same with the sacrafice (to name some big ones) if you can champion these values then how is it you cannot apply the same logic to Sabbath legal code or how is it you can accuse me (implicitly) of diminishing it?

would you prefer this paraphrase "Christ did not come to diminish the law, he came to magnify it" because I do see hidden in your language the continued strawman of accusing to appolish. do you truely accept that all of law is magnified through Christ or is it only the 10? because there is a consistency problem in your approach and it feels like it's in a 10 commandment vacuum since your logic falls apart when considered for the whole.

Click to expand...

The Bible can speak against doing something for incorrect reasons without speaking against doing it for correct reasons. If Paul had been speaking against circumcision for any reason and not just against incorrect reasons, then Galatians 5:2 would mean that he caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised and Christ is of no value to roughly 70% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, they were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the reason for why God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Law of God by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for incorrect reasons. In Exodus 12:48, Gentiles who want to eat of the Passover lamb are required to become circumcised, so the Jerusalem Council should not be interpreted as ruling against Gentiles correctly following what God has commanded as if they had the authority to countermand God.

In Acts 21:20-24, Paul panned to pay for the offerings for people who were under vow in order to disprove false rumors that he had been teaching against obeying the Law of God and to show that he continued to live in obedience it it. In Hebrews 8:4, it refers to offerings that were still being offered in accordance with the Law of God. So offerings did not cease with the death or resurrection of Jesus, but only ceased because of the destruction of the Temple. The Bible prophesies about a time when another Temple will be built and when offerings will resume (Ezekiel 40-46).

Christ magnified all of the Law of God, not just the Ten Commandments.

Soyeong said:

The Bible can speak against doing something for incorrect reasons without speaking against doing it for correct reasons.

Click to expand...

there is legal code of the old covenant that we do not keep in the new. not because of our intentions to the legal code but because Jesus fulfills them in a way that the legal code has become obsolete. Christ magnifies law but that doesn't mean it's legal code is still upon us. merely pointing out that the law can be followed sincerely is avoiding engaging the topic critically.

the sacrafice did not cease in the temple after Christ's death, but the legal code did, making the ritual of sacrafice obsolete. if it was continued with good intentions doesn't change this, it also doesn't make it evil. in Acts 21 Paul is making a missional choice for peace and promote unity in Christ. this was a "to the Jew I become a Jew" act of humility. Paul's motivation is "for the sake of the gospel" not for the sake of the law.