Can a person love without the Ten Commandments

[VictorC]

test post

testing ability to post

 

[VictorC]

Ooops - I got a double-post while tring to get through a filter thingie - ignore this.
Victor (moderator, you can delete this post to your heart's desire)

Obviously the law has a use today isn't that correct? It points out the sin of the unregenerate. It is only a mirror to show someone's dirty face.

Yes, the law of Moses does indeed have a use, according to the purpose it had designed into it. It leads the unregenerate to Christ by showing that person their need for a redeemer, since they aren't able to establish their own righteousness before a holy God. That's the "roadmap" intent that is apparent in 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 hath 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.

Once adopted and sealed, the recipient has no further need for the law, and the law has lost its jurisdiction to condemn since propitiation has been made to satisfy it according to Romans 3:23-26.

Paul is saying that those outside of the law, the Gentiles, when they do the law, or "keep" the law, they become a law unto themselves. In other words they don't need the law because they respect the law. Since they were "outside" of the law they died "outside" of the law. That means the "law" won't be used to "judge" them.

Romans 2:12 is clear when it says "as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law", and is clarified in Ephesians 2:11-12 when it concluded the Gentiles having "no hope". The Gentiles were denied a relationship with God, and they had no hope of approaching Him as long as Moses stood between them and the promises given to Abraham.

That's just it Victor, the gentiles aren't outside of the covenant, they can become part of the covenant through faith.

The tense of the verbs you're using is improper; by the present tense the Gentiles are freely accepted into the new covenant of Blood propitiation and adoption, but in the past-tense they had no hope of the Mosaic covenant of law, unless they became cicumcised and joined Israel; "taking hold of His (Mosaic) covenant", Isaiah 56:6.

Right, and those promises weren't a "law" or a "covenant" they were outside of the law. If they were part of the law then they would cease to be promises. Otherwise faith would be void.

Rom 4:14 For if they which are of the law [be] heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

I believe you have Abraham and Moses confused; the law referenced here was mediated by Moses and was a barrier between the Gentiles and Abraham.

Which law?

Moses.

Sorry Victor, but there is still a law to live up to in the New Covenant.

Jer 31:33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Hbr 8:10 For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

I had written about this at greater length in a thread started by Tall73 in the denom-specific theology forum, in my post God replaces the schoolmaster. The bottom line is that the law described here wasn't from Sinai, and that is specified in the verse immediately prior to both your selections above. By the way, that thread didn't get the traffic we had hoped it would; TrustAndObey wrote about a hundred posts before she tossed in the towel and put me on her 'ignore' feature. Feel free to add your thoughts if you like; my conclusion is that the new covenant describes the entrance of the Spirit of adoption.

Now this new law is fulfilled in Christ, "For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." But it certainly doesn't negate the law.

If our sins and iniquities aren't to be remembered again, the premise of an investigatire judgment just flew out the window - and so does the need for a law to accuse us of infractions.

Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law [is] holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Just two verses later Paul notes For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin in Romans 7:14.

That is the specific fault of the Mosaic covenant identified in Hebrews 8:7; yes, the law is holy, but you are not.

That's why we were delivered from this law that cited the contents "thou shalt not covet" in Romans 7:6-7. No one was or is ever going to pass the litmus test of that covenant, and that is the reason Jesus Christ came to redeem us from it (Galatians 4:4-5).

Victor

 

[sentipente]

testing ability to post

Did you get a whff of something?

 

[VictorC]

Did you get a whff of something?

My posts have been blocked with a new requirement to gain moderator approval.
I don't have any notices, so I don't know what's going on.
So far I only see it happening with replies to RND, so maybe it's something in his settings.

Update - the moderator approval is gone, everything seems fine now

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

>For example the cohabiting couple probably have a better and more loving relationship than the Adventist couple that are together for appearances sake. The fact that many Adventist marriages are breaking up we should be the last to talk about godless love when we cannot even keep our marriages loving.

Lust is never better than love.

Cohabitation bes not necessarily based upon lust. That involves a judgment of two hearts which none of us outside the relationship bes qualified to make. As a matter of fact, cohabitation originally, in Genesis 2:24, constituted Biblical marriage. What we call 'cohabitation' today bes simply the union of two in a marriage relationship either prior to, or without, partaking of any formal ceremony or registration with the courts. Since current USA law does not prohibit this, no civil laws bes broken by doing this, so it does not fall under the purview of failing to obey the laws of the land, either, to "cohabitate".

Genesis 2:24 makes it clear that only three things bes required for ORIGINAL, BIBLICAL MARRIAGE:

1. Leave the home of your parents
2. Establish a home with your spouse
3. "Cleave" to him/her (be exclusive of all others in your romantic/sexual love together).

These three requirements do indeed become fulfilled in what we CALL "cohabitation" today. All we have done in our modern time bes to insist upon layers of man-made formalities the Bible did not originally require so that we might call Bible-defined marriage something "dirty", "lust-based" and "ungodly". What a bunch of anal-retentive control-freakery nonsense!! God does not bind and burden us with layers upon layers of rules for moral living, so as to make it full of dotting i's and crossing t's or else it bes sin. His rules from the beginning bes simple, and based in love, not meticulous formalities. Genesis 2:24. That bes all.

/sidetrack

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Ooops - I got a double-post while tring to get through a filter thingie - ignore this.
Victor (moderator, you can delete this post to your heart's desire)

Yes, the law of Moses does indeed have a use, according to the purpose it had designed into it. It leads the unregenerate to Christ by showing that person their need for a redeemer, since they aren't able to establish their own righteousness before a holy God. That's the "roadmap" intent that is apparent in 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 hath 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.

Once adopted and sealed, the recipient has no further need for the law, and the law has lost its jurisdiction to condemn since propitiation has been made to satisfy it according to Romans 3:23-26.

Romans 2:12 is clear when it says "as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law", and is clarified in Ephesians 2:11-12 when it concluded the Gentiles having "no hope". The Gentiles were denied a relationship with God, and they had no hope of approaching Him as long as Moses stood between them and the promises given to Abraham.

The tense of the verbs you're using is improper; by the present tense the Gentiles are freely accepted into the new covenant of Blood propitiation and adoption, but in the past-tense they had no hope of the Mosaic covenant of law, unless they became cicumcised and joined Israel; "taking hold of His (Mosaic) covenant", Isaiah 56:6.

I believe you have Abraham and Moses confused; the law referenced here was mediated by Moses and was a barrier between the Gentiles and Abraham.

I had written about this at greater length in a thread started by Tall73 in the denom-specific theology forum, in my post God replaces the schoolmaster. The bottom line is that the law described here wasn't from Sinai, and that is specified in the verse immediately prior to both your selections above. By the way, that thread didn't get the traffic we had hoped it would; TrustAndObey wrote about a hundred posts before she tossed in the towel and put me on her 'ignore' feature. Feel free to add your thoughts if you like; my conclusion is that the new covenant describes the entrance of the Spirit of adoption.

If our sins and iniquities aren't to be remembered again, the premise of an investigatire judgment just flew out the window - and so does the need for a law to accuse us of infractions.

Just two verses later Paul notes For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin in Romans 7:14.

That is the specific fault of the Mosaic covenant identified in Hebrews 8:7; yes, the law is holy, but you are not.

That's why we were delivered from this law that cited the contents "thou shalt not covet" in Romans 7:6-7. No one was or is ever going to pass the litmus test of that covenant, and that is the reason Jesus Christ came to redeem us from it (Galatians 4:4-5).

Victor

Such a wonderful and clear explanation ... even a child could comprehend this. Your posts have been SUCH a blessing VictorC. Moriah hopes you never stop posting here. You break the bread of life beautifully and you have helped tremendously to restore knowledge of a loving God and faith in Him to daimonizomai. And with that, hope.

Praise God for you.

 

[Sophia7]

As for many Adventist marriages breaking up I know of three in a church of over a hundred families. And one of those was because hse married someone who was not a Christian and he broke up with her.

Here are some statistics (from a sidebar in the Adventist Review article "Learning the Ropes Before Tying the Knot," Oct. 19, 2000, p. 8):

Pertinent Adventist Statistics

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]The following statistical data for North American Adventists are quoted from: Sahlin, Monte & Norma, A New Generation of Adventist Families, 1997. Lincoln, Nebraska: Center for Creative Ministry. . . .
[/FONT]

• [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]One in four Adventists (26 percent) has been divorced at some point in their life (p.8).[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica] One in six respondents (17 percent) experienced divorce since joining the Seventh-day Adventist church. For the others, the divorce happened before becoming Adventists (p. 8). [/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica] Low income respondents are more likely to have gone through a divorce than are higher income respondents. Blacks and whites are more likely to have gone through a divorce than are Asians and Hispanics among respondents. Recent converts are also more likely to have been divorced (p.121). [/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica] The largest number of respondents (43 percent) were under 30 years of age at the time of their divorce. Another third were under 40, and less than one in four were over 40 or older (p. 122). [/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica] One in five Adventists who have experienced divorce have also gone through a second, third, or subsequent marriage dissolution. Almost all of these individuals have had only two divorces. Only a handful of respondents indicated they had been divorced three or more times (p. 122). [/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica] A third of the divorces experienced by respondents were finalized in the 1980s, a time in which the rate of divorce among Adventists appears to have reached an all-time high (p. 122). [/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica] The rate of divorce among Adventists increased significantly for three decades--the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s. It is equally clear that the divorce rate declined in the 1990s (pp. 122-123). [/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica] Divorces by Adventist couples usually have an impact on children. Two out of three of divorced respondents say that they had minor children in the home at the time of their divorce (p.124). [/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica] Nearly a third of the divorced respondents say children from a previous marriage were part of their family when they went through a divorce. This is evidence of the higher incidence of divorce in second marriages. These children, now going through a second or possibly even a third divorce, are especially at risk. They particularly need the attention, compassion, and ministry of caring Christians (p. 124). [/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica] The wife was employed full-time at the time of the divorce in a little more than half of couples. In another quarter of couples she was employed part-time (p. 124).[/FONT]

See this link for general population statistics:
http://www.adventistreview.org/2000-1547/story1-4.html

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

That would be Moriah's statistical bracket here:

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica] One in five Adventists who have experienced divorce have also gone through a second, third, or subsequent marriage dissolution. Almost all of these individuals have had only two divorces. Only a handful of respondents indicated they had been divorced three or more times (p. 122).[/FONT]

One divorce, one divorce pending. When it says pending it means someday we will get around to formalizing it; we have been separated 8 years now and will get around to formalizing it eventually. The marriage itself should never have taken place and being a product of a bona fide folie 'a deux, would probably have qualified for a classic annullment if we'd sought one early enough.

First divorce, it bes employed part time and left everything -- house, car, etc. -- to first husband. Did not want any entanglements nor did it want to rob him of anything since he had little say in this. Has never asked for alimony or child support -- don't believe in making others pay for its sins or mistakes.

 

[moicherie]

>For example the cohabiting couple probably have a better and more loving relationship than the Adventist couple that are together for appearances sake. The fact that many Adventist marriages are breaking up we should be the last to talk about godless love when we cannot even keep our marriages loving.

Lust is never better than love.

As for many Adventist marriages breaking up I know of three in a church of over a hundred families. And one of those was because hse married someone who was not a Christian and he broke up with her.

Married couples do not have a monopoly on love and cohabiting couples do not have a monopolu on lust......so your statement above means what exactly? There are Adventist marriages where both are Adventists yet the marriage is still messed up even our Pastors are not immune from this.

 

[djconklin]

>Married couples do not have a monopoly on love and cohabiting couples do not have a monopolu on lust......

I didn't claim either. So what is the relevance?

>There are Adventist marriages where both are Adventists yet the marriage is still messed up even our Pastors are not immune from this.

Both true, and not relevant to what I said.

 

[VictorC]

I'm wondering if k4c would extend the courtesy of acknowledging this terribly long post...
At least stop by and wave...

Victor

Do you wonder at times if God loves you?
How can God love you with a godly love in your manmade model, since He is the lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22) and therefore Sovereign to His created law? Even in His earthly incarnation, Jesus' submission to the law mediated by Moses was voluntary, since He wasn't subject to it.

Galatians 4:1-5
1 ¶ Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.


Jesus didn't seem to think so.
John 5:39-46
39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
41 I receive not honour from men.
42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

These words were spoken to those abiding in Moses (or so they thought) and were observant of the ten commandment covenant mediated in his hands.

Isaiah prophesied during the tenure of Moses' jurisdiction, and spoke of the sabbath that was given to Moses in the covenant (Deuteronomy 4:13). Please remember this, as there wasn't a recipient of this "holy day" outside of the House of Israel.
Gentiles were invited into this covenant, if they chose to honor God and the shadow of the periodic sabbath day, as Isaiah 56:6-7:

6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

Just one catch: you must enter into the Mosaic covenant along with the House of Israel.
The entrance fee is circumcision, I hope you don't mind the knife (Leviticus 12:1-3 and Exodus 12:48-49).


I believe that God would be very disappointed in your view that His redemption wasn't sufficient for you, and you still needed to establish your own righteousness according to a covenant that has been replaced (Hebrews 10:9).

Romans 10:1-4
1 ¶ Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

I had earlier quoted Galatians 4:5 in this post; do you not know why the redeemed were under the law, in the past-tense?

Actually, anyone who doesn't abide by the entire 613 mitzvot of the law is cursed (Galatians 3:10), and there wasn't and there isn't anyone who has complied with them, ever. For God has Himself declared of Israel in Romans 11:32
For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.
Read the context of this passage, to see that the disobedience of Israel was instrumental in salvation being shared with the Gentiles, so that we too could receive the blessing made to Abraham.


It is delusional to believe that your own works are going to impress God in the slightest, and it is an assertion made in ignorance to God's righteousness, just as Romans 10:3 (quoted earlier) illustrates.

Perhaps it would have helped if you had included a bit more in this quote you provided.

Matthew 19:23-26
23 ¶ Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Now this wealthy man had already testified that he had kept the commandments mediated by Moses his entire life.
Jesus said that was insufficient to save this man.

This lesson wasn't lost on His disciples, who were astounded that this law wasn't going to cut the cake with a Holy God.
Only with God is salvation possible, and the motions of piety you wish to display don't mean diddley squat to Him.


Hold on!
You just quoted a discription of the remnant of Israel who keep God's commandments; where did you make the jump to the ten commandments? The same author as your citation defined His commandments in 1 John 3:23, and they are not of the ten commandments.

I believe you aren't aware that the ten commandments were the covenant mediated by Moses, and is known as the first or old covenant:

Exodus 34:27-28
27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And He wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
Deuteronomy 4:12-13
12 And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice.
13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

This is the covenant that is called the "ministration of death" in 2 Corinthians 3:7 for a good reason: the covenant contained penalties for noncompliance: death. That is the penalty for defiling the sabbath (Exodus 31:14), and you have defiled it if you haven't had two lambs sacrificed on your behalf (Numbers 28:9-10).

What? You say that isn't required anymore because Christ did that?
WRONG.
Christ is the mediator of a new covenant - and the sabbath is a component of the old one mediated by Moses. That's the message of Hebrews 8:6-7
6 ¶ But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second....

Remember Romans 11:32? God has concluded everyone disobedient? This is the fault of the first covenant - it wasn't complied with; the next verse mentions the specific fault was with the recipients of this faulty, uncompliable covenant.
Hebrews 10:9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

The Mosaic covenant of the ten commandments was taken away - and it was God who disposed of it.
I hope you can perceive that there isn't any such thing as a sabbath ordinance outside of Moses.

Hebrews 7:18-19
18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Is it possible to have godly love without the old covenant?
Sure. It was only made as a cage for rabblerousers anyway (Galatians 3:19 and 1 Timothy 1:8-9).

Victor

 

[k4c]

I'm wondering if k4c would extend the courtesy of acknowledging this terribly long post...
At least stop by and wave...

Victor

Hi Victor,

I haven't abandoned you guys. I work in a group home for troubled boys ages 12 to 16. I live there for four days where I don't have access to the internet.

 

[k4c]

Interesting points.

As a liberal, I'm finding myself with the opinion that goodness comes from God, whether or not the person realizes it or not. Love is God's gift. So, a person who goes through life without murdering anyone is in compliance with the first commandment. Would their lack of knowledge of that commandment make them any less good in God's eyes? I believe God is not petty, but loving and understanding, IMHO. I also do not think that anyone who disagrees with me is necessarily wrong, though. We all have a right to believe in our own way, and hopefully with the idea that God's love is the mechanism that drives righteous behaviour in His children.

One can hope, anyway . . .

This is all just my opinion, and I hope I'm not out of line by posting my liberal thoughts in your forum.

I agree that goodness comes from God but so does rightousness but there is a rightousness that is filthy rags. Now keep in mind, it is still a rightousness.

In this day and age love comes in all forms, shapes and sizes. Gay men and woman say they love each other. There are even churches that marry them. Is this love? Yes it is... Is it godly love? No it's not...

 

[k4c]

Dean your comments are appreciated... this emphasis on "the 10 commandments" is interesting given that the bible says that God said if you LOVE me KEEP my commandments... thus before the 10 commands comes love.....

Amen...

This is one of the big problems in the church. We try to make people obey the Ten Commandments before they have that love relationship. It's like putting the cart before the horse.

 

[VictorC]

Hi Victor,

I haven't abandoned you guys. I work in a group home for troubled boys ages 12 to 16. I live there for four days where I don't have access to the internet.

Okay, I understand. Whenever you have time, your comments would be appreciated.

Victor

 

[k4c]

you believe that the ten commandments are a reflection, I do not share that belief..... God is not reflected by his commands.... his love needs no reflection...

2 John 1:6 This is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, that as you have heard from the beginning, you should walk in it.

 

[k4c]

So, what do you call the love that they have?

It's a worldly love not based on God's standard of love...

John 15:19 "If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

 

[VictorC]

2 John 1:6 This is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, that as you have heard from the beginning, you should walk in it.

Adding some context:

2 John 1:4-11
4: I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father.
5: And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.
6: And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
7: For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
8: Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
9: Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10: If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

There isn't a faint hint that John is drawing attention to the ten commandments, the first covenant mediated in the hands of Moses.
Instead, John tells us that His commandment is to love one another.
He recorded the initiation of this as a new commandment in John 13:34.

John also gave us bad news (above) concerning those who abide in the doctrine according to Moses, instead of Christ.

2 Corinthians 3:13-17
13: And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
14: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
15: But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
16: Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
17: Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Liberty is the antithesis of bondage, and this subject is the topic of Galatians 4. Peruse it at your leisure and see the disposition of Hagar.

Victor

 

[k4c]

Part one of two for Victor...

Do you wonder at times if God loves you?
How can God love you with a godly love in your manmade model, since He is the lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22) and therefore Sovereign to His created law? Even in His earthly incarnation, Jesus' submission to the law mediated by Moses was voluntary, since He wasn't subject to it.

We can stop right here because Jesus was subject to law of God.

Galatians 4:1-5
1 ¶ Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

You have to understand what it means to be not under the law. Does this mean we can now sin because we are not under the but under grace?

Romans 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!

Sin is the transgression of the law.

Jesus didn't seem to think so.
John 5:39-46
39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
41 I receive not honour from men.
42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

These words were spoken to those abiding in Moses (or so they thought) and were observant of the ten commandment covenant mediated in his hands.

There is a big difference between keeping the law to be made rightous before God vs keeping the law because you love God. Jesus is the end of the law for the purpose of righteousness but not for the expression of godly love.

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

Isaiah prophesied during the tenure of Moses' jurisdiction, and spoke of the sabbath that was given to Moses in the covenant (Deuteronomy 4:13). Please remember this, as there wasn't a recipient of this "holy day" outside of the House of Israel.
Gentiles were invited into this covenant, if they chose to honor God and the shadow of the periodic sabbath day, as Isaiah 56:6-7:

6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

Just one catch: you must enter into the Mosaic covenant along with the House of Israel.
The entrance fee is circumcision, I hope you don't mind the knife (Leviticus 12:1-3 and Exodus 12:48-49).

The knife for the New Covenant is the Spirit and circumcision is of the heart.

In the New Covenant the Ten Commandments are not done away with, but rather, God forgives us from breaking them the He write them on our heart.

Hebrews 8:10 "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days,'' says the Lord, "I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

We are the house if Israel through faith in Christ. We become the Israel of God, spiritual Israel.

Romans 11:7-25 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were hardened. Just as it is written: "God has given them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear, to this very day.'' And David says: "Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a recompense to them; let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back always.'' I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.'' Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree, how much more will these, who are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that hardening in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

Romans 9:1-8 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen. But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called.'' That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

Ephesians 2:11-13 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been made near by the blood of Christ.

 

[k4c]

Part two of two for Victor

I believe that God would be very disappointed in your view that His redemption wasn't sufficient for you, and you still needed to establish your own righteousness according to a covenant that has been replaced (Hebrews 10:9).

Romans 10:1-4
1 ¶ Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

My righeousness comes from Christ and because of this He has taken the curse of the law away because of my sin. Now I am greatfull and in this greatful heart of mine I keep the law because I love God and I'm greatfull for His gift of salvation. Anything less than this is legalisim...

I had earlier quoted Galatians 4:5 in this post; do you not know why the redeemed were under the law, in the past-tense?

Actually, anyone who doesn't abide by the entire 613 mitzvot of the law is cursed (Galatians 3:10), and there wasn't and there isn't anyone who has complied with them, ever. For God has Himself declared of Israel in Romans 11:32
For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.
Read the context of this passage, to see that the disobedience of Israel was instrumental in salvation being shared with the Gentiles, so that we too could receive the blessing made to Abraham.

We were redeemed from the curse of the law because of sin not for the law itself.

Galatians 3:13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree''),

What brought the curse of law? Sin...

The law itself is not sin.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet.''

Our relationship to the law changes because of Christ. The law becomes a joy and a delight becasue God writes them on our heart.

Romans 7:22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.

It is delusional to believe that your own works are going to impress God in the slightest, and it is an assertion made in ignorance to God's righteousness, just as Romans 10:3 (quoted earlier) illustrates.

The big problem with the church today is that they misunderstand how we no longer view the law as a means to rightousness and acceptance by God, but rather, as an expression of love from a greatfull heart.

Perhaps it would have helped if you had included a bit more in this quote you provided.

Matthew 19:23-26
23 ¶ Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Now this wealthy man had already testified that he had kept the commandments mediated by Moses his entire life.
Jesus said that was insufficient to save this man.

This lesson wasn't lost on His disciples, who were astounded that this law wasn't going to cut the cake with a Holy God.
Only with God is salvation possible, and the motions of piety you wish to display don't mean diddley squat to Him.

There are two sides of the law that you need to undertand. One side of the law deals with rightousness while the other side deals with love. Jesus took care of the righeousnes side of the law but the law as an expression of godly love is still alive and well.

Some people are not willing to part with their earthly riches if the need arises.

The rich man asked Jesus what he must do to receive eternal life. Jesus points him to the Ten Commamdents. The made said he kept them from his youth. Jesus says okay now go and sell all that you have and help the needy. The made failed the love side of the law. How can he keep the law and not love his poor neighbor enough to help him.

Hold on!
You just quoted a discription of the remnant of Israel who keep God's commandments; where did you make the jump to the ten commandments? The same author as your citation defined His commandments in 1 John 3:23, and they are not of the ten commandments.

I believe you aren't aware that the ten commandments were the covenant mediated by Moses, and is known as the first or old covenant:

Exodus 34:27-28
27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And He wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
Deuteronomy 4:12-13
12 And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice.
13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

This is the covenant that is called the "ministration of death" in 2 Corinthians 3:7 for a good reason: the covenant contained penalties for noncompliance: death. That is the penalty for defiling the sabbath (Exodus 31:14), and you have defiled it if you haven't had two lambs sacrificed on your behalf (Numbers 28:9-10).

What? You say that isn't required anymore because Christ did that?
WRONG.
Christ is the mediator of a new covenant - and the sabbath is a component of the old one mediated by Moses. That's the message of Hebrews 8:6-7
6 ¶ But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second....

Remember Romans 11:32? God has concluded everyone disobedient? This is the fault of the first covenant - it wasn't complied with; the next verse mentions the specific fault was with the recipients of this faulty, uncompliable covenant.
Hebrews 10:9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

The Mosaic covenant of the ten commandments was taken away - and it was God who disposed of it.
I hope you can perceive that there isn't any such thing as a sabbath ordinance outside of Moses.

Hebrews 7:18-19
18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Is it possible to have godly love without the old covenant?
Sure. It was only made as a cage for rabblerousers anyway (Galatians 3:19 and 1 Timothy 1:8-9).

I don't have much time to cover the rest but I'm going to refer you to a study I just did called, "Why is the law on stone a ministry of death?"

Many blessing to you brother Vic...