(Moved) The law. Is it done away with? Is it, really?

[stuart lawrence]

The whole time after I linked that verse, you were saying Paul can't be an example of this verse, because he was sinning. You sent several posts disputing that Paul had the law written on his heart and mind, because he sinned.

Although, your explanation for your interpretation of chapter 7, might be why we are having this discussion. You don't see chapter 7 as an example of him declaring his desire to keep the Torah, while struggling with sin. But if you read chapter 7 all the way through chapter 8 to the end, you will see that it's true. It's about him struggling to be free of sin, and hating himself when he falls, all the while placing his salvation ultimately on Jesus when he does inevitably fail.

QUOTE where I said Ezekiel 36:27 refers to perfection.
I did NOT say Paul cannot be an example if this verse because he was sinning. I did not use that word. Please dont bear false witness against me.
I quoted Paul as saying he COULD NOT do the good he wanted to do, but rather the evil he did not want to do this he kept in doing
And
He was sold as a slave to breaking Gods laws/ sin

 

[A_Thinker]

Romans 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Love is the fulfilling of the Law.

I don't, however, believe that the reverse is true (i.e. that following the Law is the fulfillment of Love).

That's like saying that following a marriage manual is the totality of what I must do to keep my marriage happy.

Take it from one who knows ... it takes a bit more than that.

I have an honest (i.e. not trick) question ...

Does the Law say anything about prayer ... ?

 

[stuart lawrence]

?

It's about context man, and chapter 8 gives context to what chapter 7 is talking about, so therefore to say that we are limiting our discussion makes no sense, considering that would limit our understanding.

Yep context.
Was Paul a slave of sin, was sin his master in rom ch7, yep, he said it was( verse14)

For sin shall no longer be your master for you are not under law but under grace
Rom6:14

 

[stuart lawrence]

?

It's about context man, and chapter 8 gives context to what chapter 7 is talking about, so therefore to say that we are limiting our discussion makes no sense, considering that would limit our understanding.

It does make sense if you understand the truth

 

[twinserk]

No, the leaders of the church did OT expect gentiles to learn the rest of the laws in the local churches. For years after the council of Jerusalem they reconfirmed their decision to Paul to only require gentiles to observe the four laws mentioned in Acts ch15( Acts21:25)

Once again, if you look at the verses surrounding that verse, it's apparent that circumcision is what is being discussed.

Acts 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
​

The elders then reference their previous decision laid out in Acts 15, when the Pharisees had brought up the very same subject. Yes, if you ignore the entire rest of the chapter in Acts 15, it does seem like they are doing away with the law. But I'm not going to ignore the entirety of Acts 15, and neither should you.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Once again, if you look at the verses surrounding that verse, it's apparent that circumcision is what is being discussed.

Acts 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
​

The elders then reference their previous decision laid out in Acts 15, when the Pharisees had brought up the very same subject. Yes, if you ignore the entire rest of the chapter in Acts 15, it does seem like they are doing away with the law. But I'm not going to ignore the entirety of Acts 15, and neither should you.

Whichever way you look at it, gentile converts were only asked to follow four laws, and years later that was confirmed

 

[PropheticTimes]

Jesus "trangressed" the Mosaic Law many times (touching a leper [should have made Him unclean but did not], touching a dead girl to raise her to life [again, under Law should have made Him unclean but did not], healing on the Sabbath [a big no no except under life/death circumstances]), etc...

"I desire mercy, not sacrifice."

Jesus' teachings and life are filled with Him doing what the Teachers of the Law saw as "against the Law".

 

[stuart lawrence]

A slave always has a master. If you are a slave to something or someone, they are your master:

We know that the law is spiritual, but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin
Rom7:14

So sin is Pauls master in the above verse.

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

Don't you know that when you offer yourself to someone you are slaves to the one whom you obey. Whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience which leads to righteousness.
But thanks be to God, though you USED to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free of sin( being slaves of sin) and have become slaves of righteousness
Rom6:16-18

Once again:

We know that the law is spiritual, but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin
Rom7:14

And once more:

For sin shall no longer be your master for you are not under law but under grace
Rom6:14

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

In verse 18, He says that not until heaven and earth pass, shall the law have to be removed. Heaven and earth are still here, so not only does this mean that the law is still meant to be obeyed.

I agree we should still keep the law, but what are the laws we are to keep?

Then in verse 20:

20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

This is saying that, the righteousness of the Pharisees, was by the letter, and not of faith. So, in order to have more righteousness than a Pharisee, one must only believe, and trust in God.

Is righteousness something determined by man or God? The Pharisees strived for a righteous life as known and shown to other men. God has a different way to judge righteousness. That is to do good as he determines.

But, we are to still keep the laws as the Pharisees said to, as stated by Jesus here: Matthew 23:1-3 - 1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

He is saying that the Pharisees teach the law of Moses, and that His disciples are to obey and to keep that law. To listen to them, because they preach the law of Moses, but only not to do as they do, because they place their faith in justification in themselves, and in man, not in God.

It puzzles me that the same High Priest prophesied that it is better for one man to die than all. How can one both bring death to God's Son and also prophesy? What Jesus is saying is that the High Priest as an office had authority from God and should still be obeyed.

Two caveats.
Jesus sentenced the High Priest office to destruction in one generation as testified by the destruction of the temple. At this time whatever authority the High Priest had was removed and will never be granted again. So what they said in their fabricated laws are no longer required.

When what the Pharisees said was in conflict to what Jesus taught, then it was not required to follow them. Obviously, the apostles did not stop preaching about Jesus when told to by the Pharisees. Jesus explained it clearly.

Matthew 12:12 How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”

The law was never done away with, because it's displaying the Character of God. God cannot change. What is sin against Him yesterday, is sin against Him today and forever.

People try to say that people after Moses were the only ones to have known the law, but this biblically speaking, isn't so.

True, the eternal law is the one discovered by Adam and Eve when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So the eternal law is to do good, not every word of Moses, for many lived and where judged before Moses wrote the commandments of the Bible.

Besides, the feast days should be something we should want to celebrate. They all point to Jesus. All of them. Jesus has already fulfilled the first 4, and the last three He will come to fulfill as well.

The feasts where what people that followed God did as part of following God. Jesus instituted a new covenant with the sign of the Lord's Supper. This is the only feast we need to observe as we follow God. This testified by the destruction of the temple that was the center of your much acclaimed feasts.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Who has suggested Christ expects us to be sinless?

In my post I suggested no one did so.

There are churches that do associate righteousness with avoidance of sin. Are you going to argue that? Martin Luther is famous for dealing with this struggle and literally beating himself up for it. I only wish people to not be so penal.

 

[stuart lawrence]

There are churches that do associate righteousness with avoidance of sin. Are you going to argue that?

I certainly do not argue that. I was raised in one. And I was crushed

 

[Lee Stuvmen]

Jesus never once sinned. On any level. Yet:

Deuteronomy 4:2 - 2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

So, we see here, that if Jesus would have changed the meaning of the law, He would've been guilty of sin. Does that make sense? Did our Savior sin? No. Because He didn't do away with the law, He simply revealed the deeper meaning behind the law. This is why David was forgiven for murder, because He was gifted and saw ahead, to the true meaning of the law. This is why Moses was justified, because He had faith in God, and loved the Father, instead of fearing Him as the rest of Israel did at the time. This is why Abraham was justified, because He had faith in the Father. This is why Noah was justified after getting drunken, because he had faith in his Father. All of these people had the law, yet they understood God's love and forgiveness and mercy. How would this be possible without the supposed "second law"? It wouldn't be. But most importantly, our Savior, would have been guilty of sin. I implore you to see, that the meaning of Jesus saying I desire mercy, not sacrifice, is because He never desired the sacrifices men were giving up. He desired men to read the scriptures, and to believe them. They all teach us that a savior is coming, to justify us. It's right there, plainly in His word, yet people still feel that they will get justification by the law, when this isn't so. The law is and never was for our justification, but how we show our love. As Jesus says, I show the world I love the Father, because as He gives me commandment, even so I do.


This is absolutely true, because circumcision is of the heart (something you desire, and long for) and when you do it, it's for the praise of your Father, not of man. That is the difference, because you can't follow the law justly, if you're doing it so men awe at how righteous you are. It has to be because you love God, and want to do as He commands you, because it's on your heart, and you desire Him and His judgements.


Because we show that we love Him, by keeping His commands. I don't keep the law to be saved. That'd be following the letter. I don't keep the law to be saved, I keep it because I feel it's something He wants me to do, based on reading the scriptures. Too many things don't add up for me to NOT keep the law. People say that Moses gave the law, and before that no one had the law, therefore God changes, because God gives His law to some, and not others, but if you read through Genesis, all of Genesis states otherwise. Noah offered up burnt sacrifices according to the law, with clean animals. Cain and Abel gave a tithe of first fruits. Abraham was stated to have kept the laws Genesis 26:5, and gave burnt offerings according to the law, with a Ram (a clean animal), it goes on and on and on these examples attesting to the fact that God's law always was. Yet, even though in Genesis 26:5, Abraham kept the laws statutes, judgements and commands, he was still justified by faith. So was David, so was Moses, so were all the Patriarchs of Israel, as were all of the prophets. They looked forward to Jesus, which even Jesus Himself says, all of the early scriptures attest to Him. What Jesus came to do, was to call us to what the scriptures show us. That even though it talks of a law, the purpose of that law was to get us to know that we needed a savior, and that the early scriptures all tell of Him. Whether it's in genealogies, prophecies, regardless, it's everywhere, and people chose to place faith in themselves, and not in God, as I once did, but am not any longer.



I'm not choosing between the two, they are one in the same. The grace of God didn't free me from the law, it punished me from the curse of the law, and from the punishment therein. Not the law itself. Is the law of God sin? No, it's righteousness, and holy, it is peace, and it gives life. Following it, has blessed me, immensely, and I do it, not for salvation. I do it, not for justification, but out of love, faith, and hope for, and in my Father. Jesus Himself says that He came NOT to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, and that the law wouldn't pass until heaven and earth pass away. Both heaven and earth are still here, therefore so is the law. Even then, when in heaven, the law will not be gone. We will still be following it, but because there will be no sin, there will be no need for the law, because we won't be capable of transgressing it.

Devon
I left the "Christian" [Sunday keeping] faith I was born into because I recognized the importance of God's Sabbath.


ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE
Keeping God's Sabbath IS THE SIGN we are SANCTIFIED BY GOD.

Exodus 31:13
Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you.



And ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE
NOT Keeping the 7th DAY OF REST carries a DEATH PENALTY

Exodus 31:15
Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.




[Sunday keeping] "Christians' seek to explain how THAT COMMANDMENT was nailed to the cross, but cannot defend that the other 9 would have also been nailed to the cross making killing and stealing now acceptable to God.


They THINK they can explain away or pick and choose.

Can they?



You see the truth in this don't you, but why then do you do the same thing?

You say you keep Mosaic Law. my bet is you don't, simply because I also came from a background of associating with people(Adventist's) for a few years who made the same arguments as you regarding Mosaic Law.


Then I learned the truth.



What does Scripture regarding Mosaic Law?

Does it say in Scripture that if you bind yourself to ONE Mosaic Law you have bound yourself to ALL?

Galatians 5:3
For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.




ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE
If YOU KEEP Mosaic Law you are a debtor to DO THE WHOLE LAW.

Does it say you can explain away or pick and choose which ones are valid?

Galatians 3:10
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.




Here is how Mosaic Law keepers are no different then Sunday Keepers who seek to pick and choose or explain away God's Commandments;


In the Law of Moses(the whole law), there are ordinances you pick and choose to explain away.

Example:
Animal sacrfices
Circumcision



IF ANIMAL SACRIFICES CALLED FOR in Mosaic Law were abolished,
then the rest of Mosaic Law was also abolished,


and if ANIMAL SACRIFICES WERE NOT abolished,
then ALL of Mosaic Law is still in effect INCLUDING ANIMAL SACRIFICES





Why do you curse yourself by not sacrificing animals if the WHOLE LAW is still in effect?

OR can you pick and choose as Sunday keepers do?

Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law


James 2:10
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.



Which of these has been made a curse;
COMMANDMENTS(10)
(Mosaic Law)

Galatians 3:13
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:



Revelation 12:17
And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.


I am only responding because I escaped the trap you cannot see that you find yourself in.

May God bless,
Lee

 

[JIMINZ]

Maybe you could clarify it what you meant,

Maybe you should learn how to read, the verses are very clear.
And they were highlighted.
If you cannot grasp the meaning, my explanation won't do you any good either.

 

[RDKirk]

There is a lot of talk of "law" and "Law" and "Mosaic Law."

Are all these references intended to mean, specifically, the Mosaic Covenant? Are the people who are talking about keeping the law actually intending to mean being in the Mosaic Covenant?

Because that's what the Bible means: Mosaic Covenant.

 

[claninja]

Maybe you should learn how to read, the verses are very clear.
And they were highlighted.
If you cannot grasp the meaning, my explanation won't do you any good either.

No need to be rude about it. I was honestly just trying to understand what you were saying.

You initially said

No the Law was not done away with.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.

This statement makes it sound as if you believe the gentiles were following the entirety of the OT law (as in temple sacrifices, circumcision, etc....). If that is not what you meant, you need to clarify what you believe. Don't assume everyone knows what is going in your head. Now if you believe the temple sacrifices, food restrictions, and circumcision were done away with, then part of the law would be done away with, which would be the opposite of what you stated: "No the Law was not done away with". However, I am lead to believe that you believe that the gentiles had the entirety of the OT law (10 commandments, temple sacrifices, circumcision, etc....) written on their hearts, as you said "No the Law was not done away with. This is what needs to be clarified.

 

[claninja]

In all honesty, we never needed sacrifices in the first place.

I have always wondered about this as well. How many times does God say he does not desire sacrifices? quite a few times.

We are to circumcise our children though, although it's not for salvation. Although, even if they aren't circumcised, it's not the end of the world. They can then make the decision to later on in life if they wanted. I'll circumcise my children, because there are blessings in doing so, but I digress.

Right, physical circumcision for salvation serves no purpose, as it does not save anyone. If you circumcise to follow the Law, you are required to follow the entirety of the law. Being an uncirumcised male doesn't make you any more or less of a Christian than a circumcised male.

 

[JIMINZ]

No need to be rude about it. I was honestly just trying to understand what you were saying.

You initially said


This statement makes it sound as if you believe the gentiles were following the entirety of the OT law (as in temple sacrifices, circumcision, etc....). If that is not what you meant, you need to clarify what you believe. Don't assume everyone knows what is going in your head. Now if you believe the temple sacrifices, food restrictions, and circumcision were done away with, then part of the law would be done away with, which would be the opposite of what you stated: "No the Law was not done away with". However, I am lead to believe that you believe that the gentiles had the entirety of the OT law (10 commandments, temple sacrifices, circumcision, etc....) written on their hearts, as you said "No the Law was not done away with. This is what needs to be clarified.

.
All one had to do is read the verses, especially the highlighted part of the second verse.

You do understand what it means to have the Law written on our hearts don't you?

 

[Soyeong]

Yes. The way changes when the priesthood changes and that happens when the covenant changes.

While we are under a New Covenant, we are nevertheless still under the same God, whose righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), and whose righteous laws are all therefore eternal (Psalms 119:160). This means that from the beginning there has always existed an eternal way to act in accordance with God's righteousness, which existed before God made any covenants, so it is not dependant on them, though this way was later revealed through them. For example, the Law reveals that helping the poor is doing what is righteous in accordance with God's righteousness, so helping the poor has always been and always will be in accordance with God's righteousness regardless of what covenant, if any, someone is under. The way to act in accordance with God's eternal attributes does not change from covenant to covenant, so speaking about a change in the priesthood does not explain how it is possible for the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness to change without God's righteousness changing. If after Christ came it was no longer in accordance with God's righteousness to help the poor, then that would reflect a change in God's righteousness.

 

[Soyeong]

Dear DevinP. Jesus told us in Matthew 22: 35-40: The first Commandment is: Love God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. The second is like it: love thy neighbour as thyself."
in verse 40 we are told: On these two Commandments hang ALL the Law and all then Prophets. God is Love, and God wants loving sons and daughters. These two Commandments say all what God wants us to know. There is nothing greater than Love, Love for God and love for our neighbour. ( all we know and all we meet)
The Bible tells us to give up all selfish thoughts and wishes, Love God with our hearts, souls, and minds.
Love is very catching, and before long, we shall be the men and women which God wants us to be. Love covers ALL wrong wishes and wants, Love will make us God`s loving children, and Love is stronger than all other wishes. The Law might be done away with, but LOVE covers all wishes which God wants from us.
Let us remember that God is Love, and God wants loving children. Let us try and turn this selfish world into a world, where God and Love will rule. Why not give it a serious TRY? I say this with love, DevinP.
Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.

All of the Law and the Prophets are God's instructions for how He wants His children to love Him and our neighbor, so the greatest two commands are the greatest two commands because they summarize and encapsulate all of the other commands and through obeying the other commands we are correctly obeying the greatest two. Jesus was not asked which commands were important to keep, but about what the greatest command was, so he was not saying that all we need to follow are those two commands and can disregard the rest, but that all of the other commands are the explanation for how to correctly obey the greatest two commands. The command to love the Lord your God with all of your heart, mind, soul, and strength is a lot easier said than done, so thankfully we have all of these other commands to paint us a picture of what that looks like.

 

[Soyeong]

I will still be sticking to the whole "those in the Spirit are not under the law because they fulfill the law spiritually and go beyond it since they are more than conquerors in Christ".

Everything listed as works of the flesh that are against the Spirit in Galatians 5:19-23 are also against what God's Law teaches while everything listed as fruits of the Spirit are in accordance with what the Law teaches, which should make sense because the Law was commanded by God, the Spirit is God, and the Spirit has the role of causing us to obey God's Law (Ezekiel 36:26-27). So it doesn't make much sense to interpret Galatians 5:17-18 as referring to God's Law, especially when Paul spoke in Romans 7 about the law of sin that stirs up the works of the flesh that are against the Spirit and caused him not to do the good that he wanted to do, while he said he delighted in obeying God's Law. The Law has always been spiritual (Romans 7:14) in that it has always been intended to teach us deeper spiritual principles of which the listed laws are just examples, but if we correctly understand the spiritual principles, then it will lead us to do things that are examples of those principle. We can not go above and beyond what the Law requires without at least being inclusive of what the Law requires.

I just don't feel like stoning people to death for absurd reasons, sorry.

Do you think God was wrong to give certain commands?