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.
Though we disagree I liked your post, enjoyed reading it, and read all you said thoroughly, in order that I might bear in mind your point of view in order to consider it over time.Whew, that was a marathon! If you don't buy what I'm saying (I can readily understand that this would be unlikely in a single 24-hour period), I bless you on your continued walk with Christ. I hope that I have not betrayed any impatience, though I readily admit to having become eager to move to other tasks by the end of this post. I have labored to speak as plainly and as convincingly as I could of a manner of reading the Scriptures which has become too infrequently recognized in this day and age, but I also realize that looking at something afresh is a difficult task, so I bear you no ill will if you choose not to embrace what I have described. It is clear from your communication that God is perfecting a work of reformation in your heart, and I rejoice in the maturity you have displayed. My best wishes for your ongoing walk!
This is not really controversial Christian theology, but the theology of Christ and His apostles. I'm placing it here in this forum because of the threads that MAY bring those who belong to Christ back under bondage to the Law, if those who belong to Christ are not wide awake to them.
Exo 24:3 "And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD has said will we do."
Exo 24:7-8 "And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD has said will we do, and be obedient.
And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you concerning all these words."
The elect had to make a promise of value in that covenant, therefore it was considered God's marriage-contract with Israel, and God (the "husband") promised Israel abundance of blessing in the land IF they obeyed ALL that God had commanded though Moses - but curses and exile from the land if they disobeyed - and because they are incapable of obeying, all that the law brings is curses and death.
Also, a marriage covenant is only "everlasting" until the 'wife' breaks the covenant, and as God said through Jeremiah, the "wife" had broken the covenant:
Both the ten Northern tribes and the tribe of Judah continuously broke the covenant, but in His mercy God promised a New Covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah which would NOT BE ACCORDING to the covenant He made with them at Sinai:
Jer 31:31-32 "Behold, the days come, says the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, says the LORD."
"Though I was a husband unto them" is the same as saying that though God remained faithful to His vows, the "wife" had continuously been unfaithful, and had therefore broken the covenant - and so their new moons, sabbaths and feasts became utterly distasteful to God, to the point that God even calls Israel "Sodom and Gomorrah":
Isa 1:10-14 "Hear the word of the LORD, all of you rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, all of you people of Gomorrah.
To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? says the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
When all of you come to appear before me, who has required this at your hand, to tread my courts?
Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them."
UNFIT FOR PURPOSE:
The Covenant God made with Israel "in the day He took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt" had proved unfit for purpose in two ways:
1. It was unfit for purpose in terms of God having an everlasting covenant relationship with His elect; and
2. It was unfit for purpose to bring life and righteousness to God's elect:
Rom 7:12-14: "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin."
The Law and the covenant at Sinai was unfit for purpose not because God was not faithful and capable, but because His elect were neither faithful nor capable.
THE TWO COVENANTS RATIFIED BY BLOOD - THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT
Blood has to do with sacrifice for sins and forgiveness for sins. The first covenant, given at Sinai, was ratified with blood:
Exo 24:8 "And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you concerning all these words."
Likewise the New Covenant was ratified by blood - but not with the blood of bulls and goats - with Christ's blood:
Mat 26:28 "For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
FOREVER
The New Covenant is everlasting, the old covenant is gone:
Heb 8:13 "In that he says, A new covenant, he has made the first old. Now that which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away."
COMMANDMENTS IN THE LAW WHICH CONTAINED THE WORDS "EVERLASTING" AND "FOREVER"
.. are done away with and cease to exist - BECAUSE THEY WERE BROKEN BY THE PEOPLE AND THE COVENANT WHICH WAS BASED UPON THEM HAS BEEN REPLACED.
INSULTING THE BLOOD OF THE EVERLASTING COVENANT
It's an insult to God the Father and His Messiah who is Christ the Lord to seek to keep alive commandments (such as sabbath-keeping) which are part of the Old Covenant and have been done away with because the "wife" broke the covenant.
When God used the words "everlasting" and "forever" when He gave the Law and its commandments to His elect at Sinai, it's because HE was faithful and capable of keeping HIS vows - and IF (ONLY IF) the "wife" in that marriage-covenant had remained obedient and faithful, would that covenant INCLUDING ALL ITS COMMANDMENTS UPON WHICH IT WAS BASED, have remained "everlasting" and "forever".
So to the question: "Whatever happened to forever?" - those who belong to Christ know the answer - "forever" and "everlasting" in that covenant's commandments WAS BROKEN BY THE PEOPLE, and so the entire covenant needed replacing.
God would NEVER have first promised the New Covenant and Christ would NOT have come to shed His blood as a remission of sins if that covenant and those commandments were fit for purpose - but they are NOT fit for purpose.
Jesus said:
John 13:34 " A new commandment I give unto you, That all of you love one another; as I have loved you, that all of you also love one another."
He said,
Matt 22:40 "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets:
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, You shall love your neighbour as yourself."
Paul said,
Rom 13:9-10 "For this, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, You shall not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, You shall love your neighbour as yourself. Love works no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."
NOT A LICENSE TO SIN
DEAD TO THE LAW
Rom 7:6 "But now we having been set free from the Law, having died to that in which we were held, so that we serve in newness of spirit and not in oldness of the letter."
THOSE WHO ARE IN CHRIST HAVE DIED TO THE LAW BECAUSE CHRIST ABOLISHED IT IN HIS FLESH WHEN HE DIED:
Eph 2:15 "Having abolished in His flesh the enmity (the Law of commandments contained in ordinances) so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, making peace between them;"
DEAD TO SIN:
Rom 6:1-4 "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know all of you not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."
So the apostle John could write,
1John 2:1-3 "My little children, I write these things to you so that you do not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He is the propitiation concerning our sins, and not concerning ours only, but also concerning the sins of all the world.
And by this we know that we have known Him, if we keep His commandments."
WHICH COMMANDMENTS?
1. LOVE THE BRETHREN
John 13:34 " A new commandment I give unto you, That all of you love one another; as I have loved you, that all of you also love one another."
2. LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR
Matt 19:17-19 "And He said to him, Why do you call Me good? There is none good but one, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.
He said to Him, Which?
Jesus said, You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, honor your father and mother, and, you shall love your neighbor as yourself."
IT'S JUST AS PAUL LATER SAID,
Paul said,
Rom 13:9-10 "For this, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, You shall not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, You shall love your neighbour as yourself.
Love works no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."
3. LOVE YOUR ENEMIES (IT'S PART OF LOVING YOUR NEIGHBOR)
Matt 5:43-44 "You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you and persecute you, so that you may become sons of your Father in Heaven. For He makes His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust."
HOW DO WE KEEP THESE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST?
Jesus told us how:
John 15:4-6 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it remains in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
I am the Vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, the same brings forth much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.
If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered. And they gather and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."
AGAIN, IT'S JUST AS PAUL LATER SAID,
Phil 2:13 "For it is God who works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure."
Turning away from grace back to the Law and commandments of Moses will cause you to fall from grace:
John 1:17 "For the law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."
JESUS REPRESENTS US BEFORE GOD, AND HE PERFECTLY OBEYED THE LAW OF MOSES AND ITS COMMANDMENTS ON OUR BEHALF - BECAUSE GOD'S ELECT WAS INCAPABLE OF OBEYING THEM, AND BROKE THE COVENANT.
THE LAWS OF MOSES AND THEIR COMMANDMENTS ARE FOREVER UNFIT FOR PURPOSE. CHRIST'S BLOOD AND THE SPIRIT OF GOD ARE FOREVER FIT FOR PURPOSE.
Good question, pasifika.Hello, just to ask about the law of God in our mind and the law of sin and death in the flesh...can you elaborate more on how the two laws related?
Galatians 3:17...states that the law was introduced 430 years after the covenant with Abraham..
Then the answer is, "Yes, at least in part," and you have chosen to frame your response in the negative. Unnecessarily. I exhort you to pay attention to this due to Luke 6:45, especially if it is habit.I know this was not directed at me, but if I may moot an answer: No, at least not in full.
The law against mixing cloth does have moral content. I have already addressed your point so, again, matters already addressed (even if only in summary) are being raised in a manner that does not further the conversation. Here's the key: principle over over letter or particular.The Law of Moses contains many elements that have no apparent moral content, such as a law about mixing cloth.
Yes, it was given to the Jews alone but this is because A0 They were holy (separated) for the purposes of spreading God's law and 2) the stranger, alien, sojourner was to abide by those laws, too.Plus, the Law of Moses were given to Jews and Jews only...
Yep. That is because the law testified to Christ and Christ has fulfilled the law. Besides, God never wanted a temple built of stone made by human hands. There was not "law for a temple, btw. Never. Jesus was the only temple God ever intended to have built (2 Sam. 7).Plus, I think you would be hard-pressed to argue that we should build another temple and start slaughtering animals on the alter.
It's pretty clear you don't understand the Law of Moses as I have expounded upon it and you haven't taken the time and care to consider what I have posted and prefer to approach that content unnecessarily negatively, critically, not critiqually.This is a complex matter but I suggest it is pretty clear that the Law of Moses is not something...
I would have thought this text alone would be enough to close the matter - the Law has been clearly left behind.Romans 7:4-6: "So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
(1) It is entirely reasonable to draw plausible inferences from the text. I am offering a perfectly plausible explanation for why Paul continued to, at times, follow the Law of Moses. Your argument is based is based on the unrealistic premise that unless a reason X is specified for every action Y, we cannot posit that X was the reason why Y happened.Which would be you 1) reading into the text(s) things never stated and 2) ignoring what is stated in the text.
I believe you have still have not offered a satisfactory counterargument to my position that adherence to the Law was a pragmatic concession out of respect to Jewish sensibilities.Your comment has to do with "How does the law still apply?" and I have already answered that in at least two different ways: 1) the example provided by the epistolary writers when they frequently and repeatedly (near constantly) assert and apply the OT to both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ
I have already addressed this, but I will try again. I am pretty sure you are referring to this statement:and 2) Paul direction to Timothy, stating quite explicitly the Tanakh is profitable for training in righteousness (once righteous in Christ we still need training) and equipping for good works (which Ephesians 2:10 tells us is the purpose of our salvation).
Mockery only works if you have a point. And here you do not: If a person rightly determines that scripture presents an evolving redemption narrative in which the Law of Moses was initiated and then came to an end, that person can "do the math" and understand that what once was the case no longer is the case.So the day after the first century Christian read Paul or James he could ignore what they wrote because "going forward" it no longer applied?
Yeah, I'm gonna let that be your argument because it speaks for itself.
I agree that the law fails in the manner you indicate, but there is more. There is a dark aspect of the Law that is often missed by people who do not examine Paul's arguments really carefully.There is an important detail being left out her.
The law fails in that it brings curses and death to all who seek to live by it AS A MEANS OF OBTAINING JUSTIFICATION AND RIGHTEOUSNESS.
That's all. That is the explicitly specified context of Paul's comments on the law. Going beyond those two givens and making larger statements about the law is adding to scripture.
Correction: It is entirely reasonable to draw exegetical inferences from the text, not infernetial inferences.(1) It is entirely reasonable to draw plausible inferences from the text.
No, you are not. You're making stuff up and attributing it to Paul based on sheer speculation and not anything specifically reported in the text. That's eisegesis, not exegesis.I am offering a perfectly plausible explanation for why Paul continued to, at times, follow the Law of Moses.
Straw man. That is not what my argument is based upon. My dissent is based on the fact there's nothing in the text stating what you asserted and there is nothing in the context remotely alluding to what you asserted. An objective comparison between what the text states and what you say it says leads to a singular conclusion: you made stuff up and now you're arguing over it by blaming me.Your argument is based is based on the unrealistic premise that unless a reason X is specified for every action Y, we cannot posit that X was the reason why Y happened.
Again, I have already addressed that matter and I have done so in several posts. Not only have I done so repeatedly but I have done so in two completely different ways. You are either...(2) Where, and please be specific, does Paul, or any other New Testament writer, state that we should follow the law for a reason that precludes the possibility that following the Law was a pragmatic decision in order to appease Jewish sensibilities.?
I don't need to post a refutation of claims not proven. What you're doing now is called shifting the onus. It is a long-established and well-established logical fallacy. It is also avoidant.I believe you have still have not offered a satisfactory counterargument to my position that adherence to the Law was a pragmatic concession out of respect to Jewish sensibilities.
None of which is the problem. The problem is your position has the NT writers not-retiring what is supposedly retired. That is self-contradictory.I have already addressed this, but I will try again. I am pretty sure you are referring to this statement:
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.
To say that the Law of Moses has been retired is perfectly coherent with a belief that "all scripture is inspired by God" because, of course, there is every reason to believe that scriptures is a redemption narrative - an evolving story with various phases. To assert that a certain phase, such as the era of the Law of Moses, has come to an end in no way denies the truthfulness of scripture. It is "true" that the Kansas Chiefs won the Super Bowl, but this does not mean the game is still going.
Except that's not what I posted. That is a straw man. You've done this repeatedly and I won't tolerate it. You'll either lay aside the biases and learn what I've posted making a sincere effort to understand it before deciding or we won't be discussing it.Now to the more challenging bit. You appear to be arguing something like this:
1. The Law of Moses was instituted to train us in righteousness;
2. The Law of Moses is presented to us in God's inspired scripture;
3. We still need to be trained in righteousness;
4. Therefore, the Law of Moses should still be followed.
If you want to keep the Mosaic law, be my guest. You'll have a very difficult time of it,...
Please see post 92 - there is a compelling case to be made that Jesus is not intending to be taken literally when he uses the phrase "until heaven and earth pass away".
... the Law has not yet come to an end until the Cross where Jesus declares "it is finished"...
Jesus said this (according to Young's Literal Translation):Sorry, I don’t think Jesus said all is finished and I believe Jesus means what he said. But maybe I have misunderstood. Luckily, if one fails to keep all the commandments, it doesn’t mean the end, because Jesus said:
… Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Mat. 5:17-19
The scriptures don't say the Law of Moses came to an end in all things. It specifies the ways in which it is terminated and asserts ways in which it remains and you are not dealing with those facts of scripture.Mockery only works if you have a point. And here you do not: If a person rightly determines that scripture presents an evolving redemption narrative in which the Law of Moses was initiated and then came to an end, that person can "do the math" and understand that what once was the case no longer is the case.
Good. Glad you agree. Why didn't you begin with that affirmation. Why have so many exchanges occurred before conceding to the obvious?I agree that the law fails in the manner you indicate...
(josh rolls eyes) Well... let's see. In a sentence and a half some vagary of "dark aspect" that is nowhere defined or scripturally evidenced is asserted, and a baseless insinuation people miss that undefined dark aspect with the further indictment they don't examine scripture.but there is more. There is a dark aspect of the Law that is often missed by people who do not examine Paul's arguments really carefully.
The sinful passions already exist. They have existed since Genesis 3:7. Furthermore, by quote mining Romans 7 you've ignored the specifically, explicitly stipulated context stated in the text: living in the flesh. When we were living in the flesh the law arouses already existing sinful desires.Consider this from Romans 7:
For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the Law were at work in our bodies……”
The Torah actually stimulates sinful passions – it arouses them. It does not merely reveal them. And there’s more:
“But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire….”
Again, the Torah is generating sinful desire, it is not merely revealing it.
And even more:
“For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death”
Again, Paul says that the Torah gave sin a means, a vehicle to deceive. This is not a statement that Torah reveals sin – it is the stronger claim that Torah empowers or energizes sin – gives it powers it would not otherwise have, at least when acting on the “fallen” nature of the human.
Again, I am not disputing your claim that a major concern of Paul's was that Jews were seeing the law as a means of obtaining "justification" and "righteousness". I just think that Paul has more to say about the Law of Moses than this.
No, that is not the reason Jesus sums up the law in one command. The law was always summed p inone command and that command is stated in the OT! (Dt. 6:5; Lev. 19:18) In other words, Jesus is quoting the Law of Moses. So too is Paul in Romans 13. Is it that you do not know Jesus is referencing the shema, or is it that you did not understand his words are found in Deuteronomy? Because if you've posted this argument knowing Jesus was quoting the Law of Moses then you have another problem beside a failure to understand what the work of Christ does to the Law of Moses as asserted by Christ and the epistolary writers in both word and practice.The Law fails in that it brings curses and death to all who seek to live by it - not because the Law is not holy (for the law is holy), but because we are unable to obey it.
Therefore Jesus sums all the Law up into ONE commandment to give us the meaning of it (the spirit of the Law rather than the letter), and then He give us this ONE commandment. Then He tells us to abide in Him so that we can bear this fruit - and both Paul and John the apostle sum the law up in the same way Jesus did:
Rom 13:8-10 "Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For: "Do not commit adultery; do not murder; do not steal; do not bear false witness; do not lust;" and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Love works no ill to its neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."
1 John 3:23-24
"And this is His commandment, that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment. And he who keeps His commandment dwells in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit which He gave to us."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?