• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Did Christ at the cross end all the laws?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,872
7,679
North Carolina
✟362,205.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes I know. This is prior to His death,resurrection and ascension.
If one decides to reject Him, they are in bondage to the law.
He was speaking to the Jews.
That would mean bondage to the law which cannot make righteous and save (Romans 3:20) and, therefore, bondage to condemnation. . .for righteousness has always been only from God (Romans 3:21) by faith (Romans 1:17; Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:2-3), right?
 
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
11,261
6,249
Montreal, Quebec
✟315,719.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Explained in my post #26:
Ceremonial laws (which kept the Jews separate from the Gentiles) were abolished on the cross (Ephesians 2:15), including circumcision.
You are avoiding my question - you are not explaining how Ephesians 2:15 focuses on the ceremonial laws to the exclusion of other laws, like the 10 commandments. Yes, the "ceremonial laws" kept Jews separate from Gentiles, but so did all the other elements of the Law of Moses, including teh 10.

The Decalogue was upheld (Romans 3:31) law
Romans 3:31 is not specific to the Decalogue - it refers to the entire Law of Moses. I agree that Romans 3:31 is a challenge for those of us who believe the Law of Moses (all of it, including the 10) is now retired. Here is my argument about Romans 3:31

Here is that famous Romans 3:31 passage:

Do we then nullify the Law through faith? Far from it! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

On the surface, this seems like a ringing endorsement of the position that that Law, including the 10, remains in force.

But, of course, we also have this from the same letter:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

Obviously, there appears to be a contradiction.

Now back to Romans 3: Paul starts with a treatment of how both Jew and Gentile are sinners even though the Jew was entrusted with "the actual words of God". Next we get this critical transition:

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed,....

Paul is telling us about an unfolding story, and pointing out where we are in that story. And where are we? We are at the point where Jesus enters the story and justification by faith is made clear (as opposed to justification by the Law).

This leads to the obvious question - was the Law a mistake?

Do we then nullify the Law through faith?

Answer: no, we "establish" the Law in the very specific sense that we affirm its fundamental goodness and proper role in the evolving redemption narrative even though the Law has fulfilled its role and can be retired.

This, I suggest, is a plausible way to understand Romans 3:31.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,872
7,679
North Carolina
✟362,205.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I searched the biblehub.com for "ceremonial law" and nothing came up.
It's just a term to distinguish them from the moral laws,
as "essence" is a term used to explain the same nature of the persons of the Trinity.
So, my questions are:
a) what you build this division of the law into cermonial and non-ceremonial upon
b) what exactly fall into the category and according to what key you decide that
c) are for example divorce laws or "hate your enemy" or "an eye for an eye" ceremonial or not?
Presented in post #125, above. . .the non-ceremonial laws being the moral laws.
 
Upvote 0

Friedrich Rubinstein

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2020
1,386
1,454
Europe
Visit site
✟240,049.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
We should also note that everyone who hasn't received Christ is still under the schoolmaster of the law, and that's what we uphold the law as in Romans 3:31. The law leads to Christ and is showing the traditional Jews the need of a saviour (see Romans 7). So we uphold the law to bring people to Christ with it.
 
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
13,831
5,620
European Union
✟236,329.00
Country
Czech Republic
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It's just a term to distinguish them from the moral laws,
as "essence" is a term used to explain the same nature of the persons of the Trinity.

Presented in post #125, above. . .the non-ceremonial laws being the moral laws.
Post #125 does not answer my questions.
 
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
13,831
5,620
European Union
✟236,329.00
Country
Czech Republic
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
We should also note that everyone who hasn't received Christ is still under the schoolmaster of the law
Do you include even Aboriginal Australians? Or just unbelieving Jews?
 
Upvote 0

Friedrich Rubinstein

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2020
1,386
1,454
Europe
Visit site
✟240,049.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Do you include even Aboriginal Australians? Or just unbelieving Jews?
Unbelieving Jews only. Though we can draw principles from the moral laws and use those to convict "even aboriginal australians" because God has given every human being a conscience, and - as Paul writes - Gentiles are law unto themselves by their conscience.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: trophy33
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,872
7,679
North Carolina
✟362,205.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You are avoiding my question - you are not explaining how Ephesians 2:15 focuses on the ceremonial laws to the exclusion of other laws, like the 10 commandments.
The explanation lies in both "abolishing and upholding" of the law.
All of the law cannot be both.

And we see that the Decalogue is not retired, it "and whatever other commandment there may be" (moral laws) is obeyed in the loving of God (Matthew 22:37-40) and our neighbor (Romans 13:8-10).
Yes, the "ceremonial laws" kept Jews separate from Gentiles, but so did all the other elements of the Law of Moses, including teh 10.
The ceremonial laws forbid association with "unclean" Gentiles.
The moral laws did not.
Here is my argument about Romans 3:31. Here is that famous Romans 3:31 passage:
Do we then nullify the Law through faith? Far from it! On the contrary, we establish the Law.
On the surface, this seems like a ringing endorsement of the position that that Law, including the 10, remains in force.
But, of course, we also have this from the same letter:
But now we have been released from the Law,
We have been released from its curse (Galatians 3:10) for imperfect law-keeping.
We now keep/obey it all in loving God and neighbor (Romans 13:8-10; Matthew 22:37-40).
having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
In the new way of the Spirit where it is fully met in us, not by us (Romans 8:4), according to the new covenant promise of Jeremiah 31:31-34.
Obviously, there appears to be a contradiction.
Now back to Romans 3: Paul starts with a treatment of how both Jew and Gentile are sinners even though the Jew was entrusted with "the actual words of God". Next we get this critical transition:

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed,....
Yes, this imputed righteousness (justification--declared righteous) is by faith, (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:2-3; Romans 4:5), not by law-keeping.

But there is also an imparted righteous of
sanctification (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19), in obedience by the Holy Spirit which is also necessary, after justification by faith.

Paul is telling us about an unfolding story, and pointing out where we are in that story. And where are we? We are at the point where Jesus enters the story and justification by faith is made clear (as opposed to justification by the Law).
This leads to the obvious question - was the Law a mistake?
Do we then nullify the Law through faith?
Answer: no, we "establish" the Law in the very specific sense that we affirm its fundamental goodness and proper role
It's proper role is as one of the means of sanctification in obedience by the Holy Spirit.
in the evolving redemption narrative even though the Law has fulfilled its role and can be retired.
This, I suggest, is a plausible way to understand Romans 3:31.
Excellent effort, but it omits the process of sanctification to holiness by obedience required of all the born again, for

"Without holiness, no one will see the Lord." (Hebrews 12:14)[/quote]
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,872
7,679
North Carolina
✟362,205.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Post #125 does not answer my questions.
I searched the biblehub.com for "ceremonial law" and nothing came up.
It's just a term to distinguish them from the moral laws,
as "essence" is a term used to explain the same nature of the persons of the Trinity.
So, my questions are:
a) what you build this division of the law into cermonial and non-ceremonial upon
A division between the moral and ceremonial laws, where "abolishing or upholding" the law can't apply to both.
b) what exactly fall into the category and according to what key you decide that
The NT presents the Decalogue as being in ongoing fulfillment in the loving God and neighbor (Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 13:8-10), while presenting the ceremonial (Levitical laws) as fulfilled in Christ.
c) are for example divorce laws or "hate your enemy" or "an eye for an eye" ceremonial or not?
They fall under moral law.
 
Upvote 0

Leaf473

Well-Known Member
Jul 17, 2020
9,306
2,557
55
Northeast
✟242,888.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ceremonial laws (which kept the Jews separate from the Gentiles) were abolished on the cross (Ephesians 2:15), including circumcision.

The Decalogue was upheld (Romans 3:31) and placed on its right footing, as a means of sanctification, and fulfilled in Christ's law (Romans 13:8-10) of Matthew 22:37-40.

Explained in my post #26:
Ceremonial laws (which kept the Jews separate from the Gentiles) were abolished on the cross (Ephesians 2:15), including circumcision.

The Decalogue was upheld (Romans 3:31) and placed on its right footing, as a means of sanctification, and fulfilled in Christ's law (Romans 13:8-10) of Matthew 22:37-40.

The Decalogue was not abolished (Romans 3:31).
Are those the only two categories of laws, then? The Decalogue and the ceremonial laws?
 
Upvote 0

CMDRExorcist

Theology Explorer
Site Supporter
Apr 13, 2011
378
187
Texas
Visit site
✟175,239.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
I didn't realize one had to be an attorney to follow Christ properly.

You sum this whole thing up perfectly.

Just a thought... I honestly believe a lot of the obsession with integrating OT law into NT covenant comes from fear and doubt. I think that it's hard for people to believe that Christ would freely give us salvation and take on our burdens and sins. So we burden ourselves with outrageous rules and expectations that were not meant for us. Christ's mercy was for us. Sure, we don't deserve it, but we should be forever grateful and not dilute it with burdensome busywork. Just MHO.
 
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
11,261
6,249
Montreal, Quebec
✟315,719.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The explanation lies in both "abolishing and upholding" of the law. All of the law cannot be both.
This does not answer my question. Let's say we agree that part of the law is upheld and part abolished (and we don't agree on this, but that is beside the point), how do you know which part is upheld and which part is abolished? You appear to to argue that the Decalogue is not retired because it embodies "love" and we know Jesus commands us to love. Well, how about this commandment:

If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.

Is this not about "love"? If so, is it not still in force even though it is not part of the 10?
 
Last edited:
  • Useful
Reactions: Leaf473
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
11,261
6,249
Montreal, Quebec
✟315,719.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
We see that the Decalogue is not retired, it "and whatever other commandment there may be" is obeyed in the loving of God (Matthew 22:37-40) and our neighbor (Romans 13:8-10)
.
This does not help your case, it hurts it. Here is Matt: 22:37-40

And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.”

If you are using this text to support retaining the 10, you need to retain all the rest as well.
 
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
11,261
6,249
Montreal, Quebec
✟315,719.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
In Ephesians 2:15, the description of the laws tells us which ones were abolished. . .those that were causing the separation of the Jews from the unclean Gentiles, which were the ceremonial (Levitical) laws of defilement.
But all elements of the law applied uniquely to the Jew. And, interestingly, Paul (or whoever wrote Ephesians) does not say that a particular category of law has been abolished in Ephesians 2.

Let's be clear: The Law of Moses - all of it, not just the "ceremonial" part - was given to the Jews and not to the Gentiles. This is simple Biblical fact.

Now you are, of course, free to argue that God "revealed" the principles underlying the Law of Moses to Gentiles. But you cannot, Biblically anyway, claim that any part of the law was given to the Gentiles.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,872
7,679
North Carolina
✟362,205.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This does not help your case, it hurts it. Here is Matt: 22:37-40
And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.”
If you are using this text to support retaining the 10, you need to retain all the rest as well.
Not if you take Scripture at its word in the context of all Scripture, where in Ephesians 2:15, the description of the laws abolished and causing the separation of the Jews from the Gentiles was the ceremonial (Levitical) laws of defilement.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SabbathBlessings

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 12, 2020
13,969
5,625
USA
✟732,474.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Unbelieving Jews only. Though we can draw principles from the moral laws and use those to convict "even aboriginal australians" because God has given every human being a conscience, and - as Paul writes - Gentiles are law unto themselves by their conscience.
Interesting. You seem to be saying Jews have to obey the commandments, Gentiles can do what they want per their own conscious. Their will, not God’s. If that was the case, all the promises of the Bible are made to the Jews, the Old and New Covenant promise, sanctification, the sign between God and His people. sure seems like we have a God of partiality, despite scripture stating otherwise, Romans 2:11 and not a God that looks at us all equally, not as a man or as a women, Jew or Gentile , but as one in Christ. Galatians 3:28-29 You can’t just cherry pick the promises. I guess you could try, but I think our Jesus may have some words on Judgment day. The commandments of God are not burdensome 1 John 3:5 and John gives us a pretty serious warning similar to Jesus in Matthew 7:21-23..

1 John 2:3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. 6 He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.

Do you think Jesus just wants to know only Jews or everyone? I have never seen the scripture that says Jew only follow My example.

Jesus is coming soon and we ought to walk just as He walked, who kept all the commandments and told us to as well. John 14:15, John 15:10,
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,872
7,679
North Carolina
✟362,205.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
But all elements of the law applied uniquely to the Jew. And, interestingly,
Paul (or whoever wrote Ephesians) does not say that a particular category of law has been abolished in Ephesians 2.
Indeed he does!
In Ephesians 2:15, he describes the laws that were abolished; i.e., those causing the separation of the Jews from the unclean Gentiles, which were the ceremonial (Levitical) laws of defilement.
Let's be clear: The Law of Moses - all of it, not just the "ceremonial" part - was given to the Jews and not to the Gentiles. This is simple Biblical fact.
It's not about to whom the laws were given, it's about which laws were abolished.
you are, of course, free to argue that God "revealed" the principles underlying the Law of Moses to Gentiles. But you cannot, Biblically anyway, claim that any part of the law was given to the Gentiles.
And I do neither. . .

However, when you take Scripture at its word in the context of all Scripture, where in Ephesians 2:15, the description of the abolished laws that were causing the separation of the Jews from the Gentiles was the ceremonial (Levitical) laws of defilement.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.