The Covenant is only for Israel - Not the World

[fhansen]

It is not me who is rewriting Romans 7:6, it is anyone who denies that it claims that we have been set from from the Law of Moses. Here it is in context:

For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were brought to light by the Law, were at work in [a]the parts of our body to bear fruit for death. 6 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 [b]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter

What is "the Law" in verse 5? Obviously the Law of Moses. So how can "the Law" in the very next verse be anything other than the Law of Moses? Especially since, as verse 6 declares the result of the being released from "the Law" is that we no longer serve "the letter"! This, again, is an obvious reference to the Law of Moses.

It is denial, pure and simple, to suggest that it is anything other than the Law of Moses that is what Paul is talking about in verse 6 - he has just referred to the Law of Moses in the preceding sentence and the "law of sin" will not be introduced till verse 21.

Like others, you are telling us something that is true - there is indeed a "law of sin", but not relevant as it is otherwise clear, as has just been proven, that it is the Law of Moses that Paul is talking about in verse 6.

We are released both from the Law of Moses and the law of sin.

Now then, as for Paul delighting in the Law of Moses:

You appear to be arguing that since Paul lauds the law and delights in it so much - which he clearly does - he cannot possibly believe that the Law also has a role in bringing about Paul's death. But, the problem, of course, is that Paul is very clear that the Law itself does indeed create problems:

But sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me [m]coveting of every kind;

for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it, killed me

To be clear: both these texts say that the Law offered an opportunity to "sin" that allowed sin to then do its dirty work. Do you deny this? If so, I suggest this amounts to a rejection of the full inspiration of all words of scripture.

For my part, I take Paul at his word on everything - the Law is indeed holy and good and yet, strangely, it facilitates his downfall.

Instead of denying something that Paul says - as you clearly do if you deny that the Law is a problem - I choose to see how I can accept both these things, contradictory as they may seem. And there is, I suggest, a way: Paul sees the Law as something that is good and wonderful in itself but that it backfires when it operates on a person who is in a fallen position. The law can indeed be a good thing, but if the people who try to follow it are tainted with a sinful nature, all bets are off.

And yet the Spirit, as we continue to walk in Him, causes us to obey the law, without needing to hear it, without being "under the law" IOW.

 

[expos4ever]

And yet the Spirit, as we continue to walk in Him, causes us to obey the law, without needing to hear it, without being "under the law" IOW.

I do not see how Paul is saying that we continue to obey the law. He says we have been released from it. How do you explain that we have been released from the law and yet, strangely, have to continue to obey it? Look at the second half of verse 6, he says that we no longer serve the letter. How is this not as clear as clear can be a declaration that we are to no longer look to the law in any sense?

And in Ephesians 2, Paul, or whoever wrote Ephesians, says the law has been abolished.

 

[fhansen]

I do not see how Paul is saying that we continue to obey the law. He says we have been released from it. How do you explain that we have been released from the law and yet, strangely, have to continue to obey it? Look at the second half of verse 6, he says that we no longer serve the letter. How is this not as clear as clear can be a declaration that we are to no longer look to the law in any sense?

And in Ephesians 2, Paul, or whoever wrote Ephesians, says the law has been abolished.

"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger." Rom 2:7-8

"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom 2:13

"You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness."

"When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. " Rom 6:18, 20-22

"And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."

"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God." Rom 8:4, 12-13

"...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith." Phil 3:9

This is the gift of righteousness that the law attests to but cannot accomplish in us:

"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." Rom 3:21-22

"For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!" Rom 5:17

Jesus said the law has not been abolished. We simply don't serve it in the old way, by the letter, but in the new way, now by the Spirit.

"If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” Matt 19:17

"Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matt 22:36-40

"Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." Rom 13:10

"And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us." Rom 5:5

The obligation to be righteous continues under the new covenant. But it's never been accomplishable by being under the law, but only "under grace", with God rather than on my own, apart from Him. "Apart from Me you can do nothing", John 15:5. The new covenant is all about union with God, first above all else, epitomized by full-blown love for Him along with neighbor. It begins as a seed, with faith, in response to grace.

 

[expos4ever]

"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger." Rom 2:7-8

Where is the Law of Moses mentioned here?

"You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness."

"When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. " Rom 6:18, 20-22

No reference to the Law of Moses here.

"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God." Rom 8:4, 12-13

"...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith." Phil 3:9

Nothing here about needing to obey the law.

"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." Rom 3:21-22

"For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!" Rom 5:17

Nothing here about needing to obey the law.

I do not have time to address all the texts you have presented. To be fair, some of them do indeed explicitly connect to the Law. I will try to answer more fully later.

 

[expos4ever]

"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger." Rom 2:7-8
...

You did not answer my question. Here it is again:

How do you explain that we have been released from the law and yet, strangely, have to continue to obey it? Look at the second half of verse 6, he says that we no longer serve the letter. How is this not as clear as clear can be a declaration that we are to no longer look to the law in any sense?

It is not enough to post other verses, you need to explain how Paul's statement that we no longer serve the law can be reconciled with your view that we are to continue to obey it.

 

[fhansen]

Where is the Law of Moses mentioned here?

Rom 2:7 complements 2:13, which you happened to overlook. And doing good is the opposite of sin, which is lawlessness as we all know.

No reference to the Law of Moses here.

Nothing here about needing to obey the law.

Nothing here about needing to obey the law.

I do not have time to address all the texts you have presented. To be fair, some of them do indeed explicitly connect to the Law. I will try to answer more fully later.

The point, again, in all of Romans, is that the obligation to be righteous is not done away with under the new covenant but rather made possible now by that covenant. And unrighteousness is, de facto, sin , i.e. lawlessness. We simply have a new way, the right way, to obedience. And this is why, for example, the church has historically considered the ten commandments, referenced specifically by Jesus in Matt 19 as well as Paul in Rom 7 and 13 as being righteous, good, and obligatory even as it's held that they can only be rightfully obeyed by the Spirit-who brings life while the letter brings death.

 

[fhansen]

You did not answer my question. Here it is again:

How do you explain that we have been released from the law and yet, strangely, have to continue to obey it? Look at the second half of verse 6, he says that we no longer serve the letter. How is this not as clear as clear can be a declaration that we are to no longer look to the law in any sense?

It is not enough to post other verses, you need to explain how Paul's statement that we no longer serve the law can be reconciled with your view that we are to continue to obey it.

Read that post, those verses, carefully, objectively, together, and you'll see how, with the rest of Scripture, they easily reconcile Jesus, James, John, Paul et al. Again, if we serve by the Spirit we don't even need to hear the law, let alone be under it, in order to fulfill it. With the law Paul is dealing with different items at different times for different purposes: the ceremonial, dietary, and moral laws. But he's battling legalism in any case, works of the law, the idea that the mere removal of a little piece of flesh, or the types of food we eat, or the mere external obedience of the moral law can actually make one holy. He knows now, by experience and revelation, that they cannot. But that in no way means to him that man is released from the obligation to be moral, to be holy/righteous, a holiness that the law can only attest to and describe or define. He knows that man needs the Spirit, that mans needs God, in order to be who he was created to be. And he was not created to be a sinner.

So Paul sings praises to the ten commandments in Rom 7 while lamenting his inability to fulfill them. He now knows that, even as a Pharisee who apparently excelled at observing the law, he nonetheless failed at it (Phil 3). What's the answer? Jesus Christ! He now, by reconciling us with God, provides the authentic means to holiness, without which we won't see Him (Heb 12:14). Faith accepts and realizes that reconciliation where God becomes the God of man again, as is the right and just order of things in God's creation. All true righteousness flows from that relationship, and only from it.

 

[biblelesson]

Jeremiah 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

God isn't making a covenant with the world, He is only making the covenant with the House of Israel/the Twelve Tribes. If the world does not change citizenship to become part of Israel, they will not be given the Holy Spirit. Also when Christ returns, he's not coming to save the world, He is returning to save Israel--and Israel only.

Jeremiah 16:14-15 “Therefore behold, the days are coming,” says the LORD, “that it shall no more be said, ‘The LORD lives who brought up the children of Israel from the land of Egypt,’ but, ‘The LORD lives who brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north and from all the lands where He had driven them.’ For I will bring them back into their land which I gave to their fathers.'

Matthew 24:22; Ezekiel 37:16-24

The Exodus and End Times are book ends. The entire Bible is Israel-centric; it only ever has to do with Israel and nations that come in contact with Israel. But just like during the Exodus, a great mixed multitude came out with Israel.

How does this set with people who are against the Hebrew Roots movements, or those from the past who accused Christians of Judaizing and persecuted them for it? If you're not Israel, you won't be rescued. You don't have to be blood Israel anymore, but how does one know your citizenship, except by your culture and behavior? You can't continue in man-made traditions and the culture of the world if you're an Israelite by birth or adoption. If the world doesn't recognize you as an Israelite, a Spiritual Jew, or a "Judaizer", as some mock, then it's unlikely God does as well.

Romans 11:11 KJV, “I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is comeunto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.”

Not to offend anyone but Paul says blindness occurred with reading the Old Testament without consideration to the New Testament, 2 Corinthians 3:14 KJV, “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.”

Jesus died for the world, 1 John 2:2 KJV, but you missed that scripture being so plastered to the Old Testament.

Galatians 3:28 KJV, you missed this verse also, There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Those in Christ ARE Abraham’s seed, Galatians 3:29 KJV, and are grafted into Israel, Romans 11:24 KJV. God’s promise to save Israel is kept in Christ Jesus because the promise was made to Abraham and His seed, that is not of many, but Christ, Galatians 3:16 KJV.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Jeremiah 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

God isn't making a covenant with the world, He is only making the covenant with the House of Israel/the Twelve Tribes. If the world does not change citizenship to become part of Israel, they will not be given the Holy Spirit. Also when Christ returns, he's not coming to save the world, He is returning to save Israel--and Israel only.

Jeremiah 16:14-15 “Therefore behold, the days are coming,” says the LORD, “that it shall no more be said, ‘The LORD lives who brought up the children of Israel from the land of Egypt,’ but, ‘The LORD lives who brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north and from all the lands where He had driven them.’ For I will bring them back into their land which I gave to their fathers.'

Matthew 24:22; Ezekiel 37:16-24

The Exodus and End Times are book ends. The entire Bible is Israel-centric; it only ever has to do with Israel and nations that come in contact with Israel. But just like during the Exodus, a great mixed multitude came out with Israel.

How does this set with people who are against the Hebrew Roots movements, or those from the past who accused Christians of Judaizing and persecuted them for it? If you're not Israel, you won't be rescued. You don't have to be blood Israel anymore, but how does one know your citizenship, except by your culture and behavior? You can't continue in man-made traditions and the culture of the world if you're an Israelite by birth or adoption. If the world doesn't recognize you as an Israelite, a Spiritual Jew, or a "Judaizer", as some mock, then it's unlikely God does as well.

People don’t recognize me as a Jew or a Judiazer but instead as a Christian. Jesus and the apostles often rebuked the Jews and in Galatians Paul rebuked the Galatians for mixing Judaism with justification.

 

[fhansen]

You did not answer my question. Here it is again:

How do you explain that we have been released from the law and yet, strangely, have to continue to obey it? Look at the second half of verse 6, he says that we no longer serve the letter. How is this not as clear as clear can be a declaration that we are to no longer look to the law in any sense?

It is not enough to post other verses, you need to explain how Paul's statement that we no longer serve the law can be reconciled with your view that we are to continue to obey it.

He already told us we need to obey it, in Rom 2:13. I can reconcile any of that. Can you? We're no longer under the law. That doesn't mean that released from the obligation to be righteous, to overcome sin.

 

[Soyeong]

So to sum up, your point is,

all of us who are Christians are now also part of the nation of Israel.

Hence, the Law that applied to OT Israel, now also apply to us.

Is this the correct summary?

There is no point in Gentile wanting to become part of a holy nation while wanting nothing to do with following God's instructions for how to live as part of a holy nation, so it would summarize some of what I said to say that Gentiles who have become part of Israel through faith in the God of Israel should follow the instructions the God has given to Israel through the same faith. However, your summary does not refer to the promise, so it misses a major point of what I said. Faith in the promise is foundational to everything in the Bible and teaching Jews and Gentiles to repent and follow the Torah the way to have faith in the promise. Israel is composed of those who have faith in the promise, Jesus was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel (Matthew 15:24), and all Israel will be saved (Isaiah 45:17), however, a portion of those who do not identify as a Christian nevertheless do have faith in the promise while a portion of those who identify as Christian do not even understand what it means to have faith in the promise.

 

[expos4ever]

"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom 2:13

I suggest that Paul is telling the readers what will be the case in the future for those who lived during the time that the Law was indeed in force. I do not think there is anything in the logic of this sentence that compels us to believe that the Law remains in force at the time Paul writes these words. More specifically, Paul might be saying that those who lived during the time of the law will be judged by it in the future even though, going forward, the law is no longer in force.

Contrast this with Romans 7:6 where, I suggest, these is no possible way to read this:

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 [a]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

...and conclude that Paul believes we are still under the Law. The "Law" here has to be the Law of Moses for 2 reasons each, by itself, sufficient to rule out the possibility that Paul is not talking about the Law of Moses:

- Verses 1 and 5 clearly use the term "law" to refer to the Law of Moses, and there is no usage of the term "law" before verse 6, except in the marriage analogy, where "law" does not mean the Law of Moses.

- even if one could suppose that the "law" in the first half of the verse is something other than the Law of Moses, the fact that Paul then says "we no longer serve the letter" clearly indicates that it is the Law of Moses that he is talking about.

"And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."

To say that the requirement of the law is "met" in us does not require us to believe we still need to follow the law, although I agree this is arguable. Here is this same verse in the Young's Literal Translation:

that the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

This certainly can be read as a claim the righteous status that we pursued through the law has now been met given to us in virtue of what happened at the cross. I see no necessity here that we are still supposed to follow the law. Yes, it is plausible is saying that now that God has done what He has done at the cross, we are empowered to follow the law and that, by implication, we should do so. But, as per what I have just said, I do not think this is the only way to read this passage.

 

[expos4ever]

There is no point in Gentile wanting to become part of a holy nation while wanting nothing to do with following God's instructions for how to live as part of a holy nation,

Why could it not be possible for Gentiles to join Israel with the new enlarged Israel not subject to the same laws as the old Israel was? I do not see how it is possible to discount this possibiliy.

What is Paul talking about in verse 15 here - what, exactly is it that has been abolished. In order for any answer to respect the context, whatever that gets abolished has to be something that previously created a distinction between Jew and Gentile.

It has to, of course, be the Law of Moses since that Law clearly did split humanity in two groups. I am sure you will deny this and claim that something other than the Law of Moses gets abolished. So let's see what you say.

Therefore remember that previously you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision” which is performed in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, [m]excluded from [n]the people of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who previously were far away [o]have been brought near [p]by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the [q]barrier of the dividing wall, 15 [r]by abolishing [s]in His flesh the hostility, which is the Law composed of commandments expressed in ordinances, so that in Himself He might [t]make the two one new person, in this way establishing peace; 16 and that He might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, [u]by it having put to death the hostility. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; 18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens with the [v]saints, and are of God’s household,

 

[Soyeong]

eIt is not me who is rewriting Romans 7:6, it is anyone who denies that it claims that we have been set from from the Law of Moses. Here it is in context:

For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were brought to light by the Law, were at work in [a]the parts of our body to bear fruit for death. 6 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 [b]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter

What is "the Law" in verse 5? Obviously the Law of Moses. So how can "the Law" in the very next verse be anything other than the Law of Moses?

It is denial, pure and simple, to suggest that it is anything other than the Law of Moses that is what Paul is talking about in verse 6 - he has just referred to the Law of Moses in the preceding sentence and the "law of sin" will not be introduced till verse 21.

Like others, you are telling us something that is true - there is indeed a "law of sin", but not relevant as it is otherwise clear, as has just been proven, that it is the Law of Moses that Paul is talking about in verse 6.

It is not rewriting Romans 7:6 to deny your interpretation of which law it is referring us being released from. Paul spoke about different categories of law within the same verse, such as in Romans 3:27, Romans 7:25, and Romans 8:2, so there is no rule that if he spoke about the Law of Moses in one verse that he was necessarily also speaking about it in the next verse, especially when Paul spent Romans 7 contrasting the Law of Moses with the law of sin. For example, a law that stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death is a law that is sinful, however, Romans 7:7 says that the Law of Moses is not sinful, so he switched which law he was speaking about. In Romans 7:21-25, Paul was making a conclusion that was summarizing what he said previously in the chapter, so the fact that he did not use the phrase "law of sin" until verse 21 does not mean that he was not discussing the concept that phrase refers to earlier in the chapter.

You neglected to explain why address the issue why a law that held us captive from which we have been released should be interpreted as referring to the law that Paul delighted in obeying rather than the law that held him captive. Likewise, it is not all obvious to think interpret Romans 7:5 as referring to the Law of Moses as if Paul delighted in stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, but rather that is completely absurd. If it is obvious to you that Romans 7:5 refers to the Law of Moses, then you should have no problem explaining exactly what it is that is innate to the Law of Moses that stirs up sinful passion in order to bear fruit unto death, but you are completely unable to do that because there is nothing innate to it that does that.

Especially since, as verse 6 declares the result of the being released from "the Law" is that we no longer serve "the letter"! This, again, is an obvious reference to the Law of Moses.

2 Corinthians 3:6 who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

In Jeremiah 31:33, New Covenant involves obeying the Mosaic Law, in Ezekiel 36:26-27, the New Covenant involves the Spirit leading us to obey the Mosaic Law, in Deuteronomy 30:16-20, obedience to the Mosaic Law brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, and there are many other verses that say similar things, so what Paul said about the letter in 2 Corinthians 3:6 needs to be understood in a manner that is in accordance with these verses and not in a way that is contrary to them. In other words, based on how Paul spoke about "the letter", it is not at all clear that he was referring to the Law of Moses. If correctly obeying what God has commanded leads to death, then that would mean that God is misleading us and should not be trusted, but the Bible repeatedly says that obeying God leads to life.

We are released both from the Law of Moses and the law of sin.

We are either released from the Law of Moses in order to be free to obey the law of sin or we are released from the law of sin in order to be free to obey the Law of Moses, but not both.

Now then, as for Paul delighting in the Law of Moses:

You appear to be arguing that since Paul lauds the law and delights in it so much - which he clearly does - he cannot possibly believe that the Law also has a role in bringing about Paul's death. But, the problem, of course, is that Paul is very clear that the Law itself does indeed create problems:

For my part, I take Paul at his word on everything - the Law is indeed holy and good and yet, strangely, it facilitates his downfall.

When you understand Paul as saying something that is absurd, such as with he delighted in bringing death to himself, then you should have the self-awareness to question whether you have correctly understood him rather than insisting that it is very clear that Paul taught absurdities.

But sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me [m]coveting of every kind;

for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it, killed me

To be clear: both these texts say that the Law offered an opportunity to "sin" that allowed sin to then do its dirty work. Do you deny this? If so, I suggest this amounts to a rejection of the full inspiration of all words of scripture.

Instead of denying something that Paul says - as you clearly do if you deny that the Law is a problem - I choose to see how I can accept both these things, contradictory as they may seem. And there is, I suggest, a way: Paul sees the Law as something that is good and wonderful in itself but that it backfires when it operates on a person who is in a fallen position. The law can indeed be a good thing, but if the people who try to follow it are tainted with a sinful nature, all bets are off.

In Romans 7, Paul said that the Law of God is good and that the law of sin was something within him that was causing him not to do the good that he wanted to do, yet you refuse to distinguish between what is said about these to categories of law. In Romans 7:13, Paul said denied that that which is good brought death to him, but you are saying that the Law of Moses is both that which is good and that which brought death to him, which is absurd.

There is nothing innate to the command not to covet that causes coveting to increase, but rather that command leads us to repeat and causes coveting to decrease. The issue is that there was something within Paul that was taking opportunity through the command not to covet that was causing coveting to increase, so when Paul spoke about "sin taking an opportunity", he was speaking about the law of sin, which was acting through the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses is holy, righteous, and good, so it does only what it was given to do by leading us to do what is holy, righteous, and good, and something that is holy, righteous, and good is not something that backfires. It is a sinful nature that leads us to sin, not the. Law of Moses. Without the law of sin, Paul would have nothing hindering him from doing the good of obeying the Law of Moses that he want to do.

 

[fhansen]

I suggest that Paul is telling the readers what will be the case in the future for those who lived during the time that the Law was indeed in force.

You're not quite understanding, due to trying to view things through the lens of a somewhat compromised theology. It's not about the law; it’s about still being required to be righteous without regard to the law. The law only tells us what righteousness happens to “look like”. But we don't look to the law now in order to justify ourselves, rather we look to God to justify us. Read Romans in that light and you'll understand that a real righteousness is given man as he's justified, the life of God is placed in us in seed form-and we're now to walk in that righteousness or justice, by His Spirit, and grow in it. The following injunction, for example, hasn’t changed one bit with the advent of the new covenant.

“He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.” Micha 6:8

Read my post #83 again, if you will, and the theology of the church held from the beginning may begin to come to light.

To say that the requirement of the law is "met" in us does not require us to believe we still need to follow the law

Of course not. But righteousness has nothing to do primarily with status, but about, well, righteousness, which John describes well in 1 John 3:7-10. At justification we're forgiven, washed, cleansed, made new creations as adopted sons of God; we're made just and so empowered to live as His children should- and as they must. If our faith doesn't lead to that then we're still lost. We're not expected to continue to live as sinners, but to finally overcome sin now, but now with God and without regard to the law. The new covenant is first of all about reconciliation and reunification with God as we come to know Him for ourselves through His Son. From there, from within that vital and necessary relationship, He does His work in us.

“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord." Jer 31:34

 

[Soyeong]

Why could it not be possible for Gentiles to join Israel with the new enlarged Israel not subject to the same laws as the old Israel was? I do not see how it is possible to discount this possibiliy.

God is one and His nature is eternal, so there can't be two different sets of ways for how to act in accordance with His nature. A specific action can be in accordance with or contrary to God's nature, but it can't be both. For example, if one group follows a God with an eternal nature that committing adultery is contrary to and another group follows a God with an eternal nature that committing adultery is in accordance with, then they could not both be following the same God. The God of Israel has given instructions for how to act in accordance with His nature, so people can choose to follow Him by choosing to follow those instructions, but it is contradictory for someone to want to follow him while not wanting to follow those instructions.

What is Paul talking about in verse 15 here - what, exactly is it that has been abolished. In order for any answer to respect the context, whatever that gets abolished has to be something that previously created a distinction between Jew and Gentile.


It has to, of course, be the Law of Moses since that Law clearly did split humanity in two groups. I am sure you will deny this and claim that something other than the Law of Moses gets abolished. So let's see what you say.

Therefore remember that previously you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision” which is performed in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, [m]excluded from [n]the people of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who previously were far away [o]have been brought near [p]by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the [q]barrier of the dividing wall, 15 [r]by abolishing [s]in His flesh the hostility, which is the Law composed of commandments expressed in ordinances, so that in Himself He might [t]make the two one new person, in this way establishing peace; 16 and that He might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, [u]by it having put to death the hostility. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; 18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens with the [v]saints, and are of God’s household,

I do not see how it is possible to discount the possibility that what is being abolished is something other than the Law of Moses. Gentiles were once separate from Christ, excluded from the people of Israel, strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in world, and every aspect of that refers to not following the Mosaic Law, but now in Christ, which refers to obeying the Mosaic Law, Gentiles who previously were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ, which again refers to obeying the Mosaic Law., such that Gentiles are no longer strangers or aliens, which refers to no longer not following the Mosaic Law, but are now fellow citizens of Israel along with the saints in the household of God, which again refers to now following the Mosaic Law. So what is being abolished was something that was separating Gentiles from obeying the Mosaic Law. It would be contradictory for Gentiles to want to become joined to something while wanting nothing to do with what they are joined to.

Furthermore, in Ephesians 2:10, we are new creation in Christ to do good works, so it would make no sense to interpreted verses 14-15 as saying that Christ abolished his instructions for how to do good works. God did not make any mistakes when He gave His law, so He had no need to abolish it. God did not give any laws for the purpose of creating a dividing wall of hostility, but rather His law instructs us to love our neighbor as ourselves. God's law is God's word and Jesus is God's word made flesh, so God's word can't be abolished without abolishing Jesus.

In Psalms 119:160, all of God's righteous laws are eternal. In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus said that he came not to abolish the law and warned against relaxing the least part of it or teaching others to do that, so saying that he abolished it is calling him a liar and disregarding his warning. Likewise, in Romans 3:31, Paul confirmed that our faith does not abolish the law, but rather our faith upholds it, yet you are seeking to abolish it rather than uphold it.

In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to free us from the Mosaic Law, but in order to free us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20). In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Mosaic Law is how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message, which is in accordance with Jesus being sent in fulfillment of the promise to bless us by turning us from our wickedness. Jesus also set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6). So saying that Jesus abolished the Mosaic Law is saying that he nullified everything that he accomplished through the cross and spent his ministry teaching by word and by example. In addition, abolishing the Mosaic Law would be nullifying Gospel and the promise, which is foundational to the entire Bible and would meant that lied when making the promise. It would also be nullifying grace, faith, and our salvation.

The Greek word "dogma" is used five times in the Bible, twice in regard to decree by Caesar and once in regard to a decree of the Jerusalem Council, so you would also need to give justification for why it should be interpreted in Ephesians 2:15 as referring to the Law of Moses.

 

[BABerean2]

God is one and His nature is eternal, so there can't be two different sets of ways for how to act in accordance with His nature. A specific action can be in accordance with or contrary to God's nature, but it can't be both. For example, if one group follows a God with an eternal nature that committing adultery is contrary to and another group follows a God with an eternal nature that committing adultery is in accordance with, then they could not both be following the same God. The God of Israel has given instructions for how to act in accordance with His nature, so people can choose to follow Him by choosing to follow those instructions, but it is contradictory for someone to want to follow him while not wanting to follow those instructions.


I do not see how it is possible to discount the possibility that what is being abolished is something other than the Law of Moses. Gentiles were once separate from Christ, excluded from the people of Israel, strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in world, and every aspect of that refers to not following the Mosaic Law, but now in Christ, which refers to obeying the Mosaic Law, Gentiles who previously were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ, which again refers to obeying the Mosaic Law., such that Gentiles are no longer strangers or aliens, which refers to no longer not following the Mosaic Law, but are now fellow citizens of Israel along with the saints in the household of God, which again refers to now following the Mosaic Law. So what is being abolished was something that was separating Gentiles from obeying the Mosaic Law. It would be contradictory for Gentiles to want to become joined to something while wanting nothing to do with what they are joined to.

Furthermore, in Ephesians 2:10, we are new creation in Christ to do good works, so it would make no sense to interpreted verses 14-15 as saying that Christ abolished his instructions for how to do good works. God did not make any mistakes when He gave His law, so He had no need to abolish it. God did not give any laws for the purpose of creating a dividing wall of hostility, but rather His law instructs us to love our neighbor as ourselves. God's law is God's word and Jesus is God's word made flesh, so God's word can't be abolished without abolishing Jesus.

In Psalms 119:160, all of God's righteous laws are eternal. In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus said that he came not to abolish the law and warned against relaxing the least part of it or teaching others to do that, so saying that he abolished it is calling him a liar and disregarding his warning. Likewise, in Romans 3:31, Paul confirmed that our faith does not abolish the law, but rather our faith upholds it, yet you are seeking to abolish it rather than uphold it.

In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to free us from the Mosaic Law, but in order to free us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20). In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Mosaic Law is how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message, which is in accordance with Jesus being sent in fulfillment of the promise to bless us by turning us from our wickedness. Jesus also set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6). So saying that Jesus abolished the Mosaic Law is saying that he nullified everything that he accomplished through the cross and spent his ministry teaching by word and by example. In addition, abolishing the Mosaic Law would be nullifying Gospel and the promise, which is foundational to the entire Bible and would meant that lied when making the promise. It would also be nullifying grace, faith, and our salvation.

The Greek word "dogma" is used five times in the Bible, twice in regard to decree by Caesar and once in regard to a decree of the Jerusalem Council, so you would also need to give justification for why it should be interpreted in Ephesians 2:15 as referring to the Law of Moses.

Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:


We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the new covenant church of Mount Sion and the blood of Jesus in Hebrews 12:22-24.


Paul and the Law Men: David H. J. Gay

.

 

[Soyeong]

Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:


We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the new covenant church of Mount Sion and the blood of Jesus in Hebrews 12:22-24.


Paul and the Law Men: David H. J. Gay

.

Acts 15:24 should not be understood in a way that undermines the justification given for that ruling. In Acts 15:21, it was expected that Gentiles would continue to learn about how to obey Moses by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues and it would be absurd to think that God misleads us by subverting our souls through His commands. When God has commanded something and you interpret Acts 15 in a manner that makes the Jerusalem Council out to be enemies of God who were speaking against obeying what He commanded, then who has the highest authority and which one should we follow?

 

[BABerean2]

Acts 15:24 should not be understood in a way that undermines the justification given for that ruling. In Acts 15:21, it was expected that Gentiles would continue to learn about how to obey Moses by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues and it would be absurd to think that God misleads us by subverting our souls through His commands. When God has commanded something and you interpret Acts 15 in a manner that makes the Jerusalem Council out to be enemies of God who were speaking against obeying what He commanded, then who has the highest authority and which one should we follow?

What did Peter say below about the "yoke" the Jews could not bear? We know he was not talking about circumcision, because it was something he did bear.

Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?


.

 

[Der Alte]

Acts 15:24 should not be understood in a way that undermines the justification given for that ruling. In Acts 15:21, it was expected that Gentiles would continue to learn about how to obey Moses by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues and it would be absurd to think that God misleads us by subverting our souls through His commands. When God has commanded something and you interpret Acts 15 in a manner that makes the Jerusalem Council out to be enemies of God who were speaking against obeying what He commanded, then who has the highest authority and which one should we follow?

Acts 15:24 should not be misinterpreted in a way that requires Gentiles to become torah observant Jews, which the quoted post seems to be suggesting. After referring to circumcision and keeping the law as a yoke that even Jewish ancestors could not bear Paul was certainly not telling former pagan gentiles to start going to synagogues where they most certainly would be required to become torah observant. There were 4 only requirements for former pagan gentile Christians, repeated 3 times

Acts 15:20
(20) But that we write unto them, that they [1] abstain from pollutions of idols, and from [2] fornication, and from [3] things strangled, and [4] from blood. Acts 15:29 Acts 21:25​

Right here would have been the perfect place for Paul to tell gentiles all they were required to do.
.