An example of how the whole law cannot be practiced today (discussion)

[Clare73]

The point I was making in post #29 didn't have anything to do with becoming righteous, so I straightforwardly didn't make a distinction about becoming righteous. The Law of Moses straightforwardly refers to the laws commanded by God through Moses.

It is a sin to add to or subtract from the law, so Jesus did not do that.

So you are saying those under the New Covenant, which has made the Old Covenant obsolete (Hebrews 8:13), are to obey the Old Covenant food laws, defilement of person laws, cleansing laws, feasts, seasons, etc. and the Decalogue.

Is that correct?

 

[Soyeong]

So you are saying those under the New Covenant, which has made the Old Covenant obsolete (Hebrews 8:13), are to obey the Old Covenant food laws, defilement of person laws, cleansing laws, feasts, seasons, etc. and the Decalogue.

Is that correct?

We are under the New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant. In Hebrews 8:10, the New Covenant still involves following God's law, so while the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete, God's law did not become obsolete along with it. For example, it will always be in accordance with God's righteousness to help the poor, so that is not something that will ever change no matter how many covenants are made or become obsolete. Adultery was sinful before the Mosaic Covenant was made (Genesis 39:9), so again the Mosaic Covenant becoming obsolete does not change God's law, so we are still to follow God's eternal law under the New Covenant. God is sovereign, so even if God had never made any covenants with man, then we would still be obligated to obey His law. If people who aren't under the New Covenant still need to repent from doing what God's law reveals to be sin, then there is nothing about not being under the Mosaic Covenant that means that we don't need to repent from doing what God's law reveals to be sin.

 

[Tone]

The whole Law is from Genesis to Revelation.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

True and
"Love God with all your heart" Deut 6:5 is Mosaic Law
"Love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18 - is Mosaic Law

The Jews actually agree with Christ in Matt 22 -- that He gave what they deemed to be the right answer.

But only those who have already been converted to Christ by the grace of God through their faith, can love in the way Jesus commanded. If you try to do it in your own strength all you end up with is self-righteousness which is an abomination to God.

 

[BobRyan]

But only those who have already been converted to Christ by the grace of God through their faith, can love in the way Jesus commanded. If you try to do it in your own strength all you end up with is self-righteousness which is an abomination to God.

The lost "do not submit to the Law of God neither indeed can they" Rom 8:4-11 and notice how this is contrasted with the saints in Rom 8:4-11 just as John does in Rev 14:12 "the saints KEEP the commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"

 

[BobRyan]

So you are saying those under the New Covenant, which has made the Old Covenant obsolete (Hebrews 8:13), are to obey the Old Covenant food laws, defilement of person laws, cleansing laws, feasts, seasons, etc. and the Decalogue.

Is that correct?

God tells us in the book of Jeremiah that the New Covenant writes the Law of God known to Jeremiah and his readers as the moral law of God (defining what sin is 1 John 3:4) on the heart and mind. Jer 31:31-34.

Bible scholars on both sides of the Sabbath topic in almost all denominations freely admit that the law in that case includes the TEN.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The command to stone is not ignored because Jesus gave himself to pay the penalty for that sin. To insist that we should still be stoning people is for you to deny what Jesus accomplished on the cross.

This idea is encouraging, since Colossians 2 states other aspects of the law that fall under the same category.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Sure it does. Different covenants

Indeed, in the new covenant, some laws simply are no longer a thing and reduced to the summary - love does not harm their neighbor.

It is harmful to not rest, so not resting is harmful to yourself. However the day you do it, is not important, just that you do rest.

It is harmful for some to eat certain foods, and some can eat anything without being harmed, dietary laws have a similar transformation.

The underlying principle remains the same, but it applies to more than one culture now.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

That is why if you love Christ you keep His commandments.

The commandments of Jesus are different than the law though. When Jesus re-iterates the law, he also expounds upon how our hearts commit sins before the hands move. A good example of this is Matthew 5:28, another example from Apostolic teaching is 1 John 3:15.

When he talks about the sabbath, he says the time of rest was made for man, man was not made for the rules. He also says that his father is working, so he works also on the sabbath day.

This illustrates that the new covenant understanding of the teachings of God, needs to be "next level" not just the same old thing.

 

[BobRyan]

The commandments of Jesus are different than the law though. When Jesus re-iterates the law, he also expounds upon how our hearts commit sins before the hands move. A good example of this is Matthew 5:28, another example from Apostolic teaching is 1 John 3:15.

1. He does not delete or downsize the Law of God - He always magnifies and upholds it.

2. In Matt 22 He says all of scripture ("the Law of God and the prophets") is firmly founded on Law of Moses found in Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart" and Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself" - and the Jews agree with Him on that point.

3. In Matt 19 Jesus said to "KEEP THE Commandments" and is asked "which ones"? His answer comes directly from the Law of Moses (related to "Love your neighbor as yourself")

4. Heb 8:6-12 says it is Christ speaking His commandments at Sinai

 

[Gregory Thompson]

civil laws for the Theocracy of Israel could not be continued when that theocracy ended - as is pointed out in section 19 of both "the Baptist Confession of Faith" and the "Westminster Confession of Faith"



It means those details about civil laws of a theocracy as noted by those two confessions of faith above - are pretty ease to find.



exactly

So the baptist idea is because of the romans chapter speaking about respecting the will of the government. That makes sense.

So, if the government legalizes human sacrifice, I know from past experience that this will be resisted and protested. However, the right to put to death evildoers has never been insisted.

So when is the line drawn do you think?

 

[BobRyan]

When he talks about the sabbath, he says the time of rest was made for man, man was not made for the rules.

Indeed - it is a blessing FOR mankind. Mark 2:27 referring to the making of both - in Gen 1-2:3

And for all eternity after the cross in the NEW Earth "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to worship" Is 66;23

So then the NEW Covenant of Jer 31:31-34 writes that Law of God known to Jeremiah and his readers as the moral law of God (that defines what sin IS - 1 John 3:4) - on the heart and mind.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

1. He does not delete or downsize the Law of God - He always magnifies and upholds it.

I agree he magnifies and upholds it. (also agree that the golden rule is the fulfillment of the law, with what James said in mind also)

However, since the death penalty for transgressions was not carried over in the teachings of Christ, that part was either downsized or a cultural rule no longer needed.

 

[BobRyan]

So the baptist idea is because of the romans chapter speaking about respecting the will of the government. That makes sense.

So, if the government legalizes human sacrifice, I know from past experience that this will be resisted and protested. However, the right to put to death evildoers has never been insisted.

So when is the line drawn do you think?

Well the government has already legalized the death penalty - but that is not "the sin" of Rev 13 since God affirms that role of Government in Gen 9 and in Rom 13. The "mark of the beast" problem is not the some day in the future some government will legalize capital punishment - rather it is that in order to get government approval they will require you to agree to some sin.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The problem is that in order to get government approval they will require you to agree to some sin.

Choosing the lesser of two evils consistently for centuries, doesn't sound promising. I must say.

But I understand what you mean.

 

[Soyeong]

This idea is encouraging, since Colossians 2 states other aspects of the law that fall under the same category.

Colossians 2 is not speak about any aspect of God's law being nailed to the cross, but about our sins in violation of God's law being nailed to the cross. For example, the law against murder is a law that is for our own good, while a sign that said that someone has been found guilty or murder would be an example of a handwritten ordinance that was against them that was nailed to their cross in order to announce why they were being executed. In Matthew 27:37, the wrote the charge that was against Christ and placed it above his head. The law still carries the same penalties for breaking it, it's just that the sign that announced why we would be getting executed is nailed to Christ's cross instead.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Colossians 2 is not speak about any aspect of God's law being nailed to the cross,

If one part of scripture means the opposite of what it says, then you cannot be assured the rest of your interpretation has any integrity whatsoever.

In Romans 13 it is explained that the law is summed up. Anything that causes harm is a sin, that would include murder. In Romans 14 it is further explained that anything that does not come from faith is sin also.

There is no need for long lists of rules, the principles provided have given us plenty of coverage.

 

[BobRyan]

However, since the death penalty for transgressions was not carried over in the teachings of Christ, that part was either downsized or a cultural rule no longer needed.

Death penalty civil laws under a theocracy cannot be applied when the theocracy no longer exists. Both the "Baptist Confession of Faith" section 19 , and the Westminster Confession of Faith section 19 - also affirm this fact - so it is not just Sabbath keeping groups like SDAs that admit to it.

Once Greece and Rome became rulers over Israel - it was no longer a theocracy and could not simply enforce all of its civil laws as if it had no other earthly ruler that now dictated what could be viewed as a death-penalty offense. Christ did not "change" that when He came - He simply left it as is. Even the Jews at Christ's trial complained that they had no authority to issue a death sentence only Rome could do that.

When Christ was put on trial before Pilate He was challenged on this very point as to whether He was "King" of the Jews - the theocratic head/ruler of Israel. And He rejected that office saying that IF it were true that He was actually the king of the nation on this Earth - ruling as He wills over the nation in earthly matters - then His earthly soldiers/servants would fight to protect Him from capture.

Under a theocracy God is literally the earthly ruler of the nation, he sets the laws and administers justice in day to day affairs as He did in the wilderness for Israel -- with Urim and Thumim rendering yes/no decisions day by day, and fire come down from God to destroy evil doers in the camp when the Earth was not opening up and swallowing those evil-doers alive.

To this very day there is no longer a God-ordained theocracy on Earth.

 

[BobRyan]

If one part of scripture means the opposite of what it says, then you cannot be assured the rest of your interpretation has any integrity whatsoever. .

Col 2 does not say "God's Law was nailed to the cross" it says "our certificate of DEBT was nailed to the cross".

13 And when you were dead in your wrongdoings and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our wrongdoings, 14 having canceled the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. NASB

So then "do not take God's name in vain" is not a "decree against us" nor "hostile to us" it is God's Law. But the PENALTY (certificate of DEBT) for breaking that LAW is hostile to us since "the wages of sin is DEATH" Rom 6:23 and all have sinned.

"What then? Do we make void the LAW of God by our faith?? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law" Rom 3:31

"what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19

 

[Clare73]

We are under the New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant. In Hebrews 8:10, the New Covenant still involves following God's law, so while the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete, God's law did not become obsolete along with it. For example, it will always be in accordance with God's righteousness to help the poor, so that is not something that will ever change no matter how many covenants are made or become obsolete. Adultery was sinful before the Mosaic Covenant was made (Genesis 39:9), so again the Mosaic Covenant becoming obsolete does not change God's law, so we are still to follow God's eternal law under the New Covenant. God is sovereign, so even if God had never made any covenants with man, then we would still be obligated to obey His law. If people who aren't under the New Covenant still need to repent from doing what God's law reveals to be sin, then there is nothing about not being under the Mosaic Covenant that means that we don't need to repent from doing what God's law reveals to be sin.

Non-responsive regarding all the Mosaic ceremonial laws.