The Law of Moses and its commandments : Forever unfit for purpose

[Josheb]

The Law had various purposes:

1. The Law reflects the character of God.
2. The Law shows sin up for what it is.
3. The Law shows us up as sinners, making all the world become guilty before God.
4. The Law is a teacher to point us to Christ who came to redeem us from the curse of the law and abolish the law and its commandments in His flesh, after fulfilling the Law perfectly on our behalf, and dying for our transgressions.

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.

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.

The fact is the NT writers say a lot of good stuf about the law outside of the contexts of justification and righteousness. The law is good when used lawfully, for example. The law is not only good but righteous and holy. So again I ask how can something inspired, holy, good, righteous, and lawful be "forever unfit for purpose"? Well, the answer lies in the fact that its unfitness is limited to the means of justification and righteousness and not all other aspects of its purpose.


My regrets, but gotta go. I'll attend to the rest of the post later when I have some time to do so.

 

[1213]

...
THOSE WHO ARE IN CHRIST HAVE DIED TO THE LAW BECAUSE CHRIST ABOLISHED IT IN HIS FLESH WHEN HE DIED:....

In this case I think it is good to remember what Jesus said:

Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill. For most assuredly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. 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

If we love God, we keep God’s commandments.

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous.
1 John 5:3

 

[expos4ever]

Are these laws not simply an expression of the moral design and structures of creation?

I know this was not directed at me, but if I may moot an answer: No, at least not in full. The Law of Moses contains many elements that have no apparent moral content, such as a law about mixing cloth. Plus, the Law of Moses were given to Jews and Jews only, at least in part for the purpose of setting them apart as a distinct people (see Leviticus 20:25). So while the Law of Moses obviously has a moral dimension it is not simply an encoding of some kind of eternal moral law. Beside, a strong case can be made that once Israel had completed its task of being a "blessing to the nations", which was finished at the cross, their ethnic charter - the Law of Moses - was no longer needed.

Plus, I think you would be hard-pressed to argue that we should build another temple and start slaughtering animals on the alter.

This is a complex matter but I suggest it is pretty clear that the Law of Moses is not something that we should be following item by item. And there are 613 of them, many of which would land your hiney in jail if you tried to do them in modern society.

 

[expos4ever]

The New Covenant does, indeed, re-affirm God's Word, and does not change or invalidate it. It does not take a body of instruction about which it is said, "The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever." (Psalm 119:160 ESV)

To be fair, the word translated as "forever" is the Hebrew word "owlam" which, according to the NET Bible (and other sources) has a range of possible meanings:

long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient.

So there is at least a debate to be had about whether the original author intended a "forever" interpretation.

 

[expos4ever]

In this case I think it is good to remember what Jesus said:

Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill. For most assuredly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. 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

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".

 

[pescador]

In this case I think it is good to remember what Jesus said:

Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill. For most assuredly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. 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

If we love God, we keep God’s commandments.

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous.
1 John 5:3

If you want to keep the Mosaic law, be my guest. You'll have a very difficult time of it, especially in the 21st Century. Remember, if you keep any of the Law you must keep all of it. Here's hoping that your prison time will be short.

Galatians 2:19: ""For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God."

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.

Romans 7:9: "Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died."

 

[Zao is life]

The New Covenant does, indeed, re-affirm God's Word, and does not change or invalidate it. It does not take a body of instruction about which it is said, "The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever." (Psalm 119:160 ESV) and cause it to no longer serve for the instruction of those who believe, or no longer comprise the truth, or no longer endure. In the very passage you just quoted (Gal 3) Paul is clear to affirm: "the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void" (3:17). By "promise" Paul refers to the Abrahamic covenant, and by Law he refers to the Mosaic law, which his opponents at the time believed justified and included one in the promises of salvation. This is what Paul is arguing: the law cannot/does not/is not intended to justify. I am confident that we are in agreement on that point, at least.

Up to the last line in the above part of your post, we agree. However, with regard to this:

But the New Covenant also does not change the contents of the covenant.

I'm assuming you're talking about the contents of the Mosaic Covenant made with the people at Sinai (not the Abrahamic Covenant)

The radical change, the manner in which the New Covenant was unlike the Old Covenant, is that it was now God who was/is responsible to write His law (the same law, not a different or truncated one)

This is where it gets "controversial", where you an I start parting paths regarding what constitutes the Law written by God upon the hearts of those who belong to Christ. So for this post, let's call the covenant of God with Abraham "The Abrahamic Covenant" and the Covenant God made with the people at Sinai "the Mosaic Covenant" (just for clarity, so that we stay on the same page):

So let's start with noting that the Law contained in the Mosaic Covenant, and the people's obedience to it (not only that Law, but also the people's obedience to it, because of the nature of the covenant, where God promised abundance of blessing and the right to live in the land for their obedience, and curses and exile from the land for their disobedience, and the promise of the people to obey), is the basis of the Mosaic Covenant which we now call "the Old Covenant.

Paul first states that that covenant, which includes the laws and precepts which form the basis of it, has been abolished in the body of Christ, and there is a new Law:

Rom 8:2 "But the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death."

Then he explains:
Rom 8:3 "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh;"

and elsewhere he states,

Eph 2:15 "(Christ), having abolished in His flesh the enmity (the Law of commandments contained in ordinances) .."

Paul actually defines the enmity in the above verse as "the Law of commandments contained in ordinances", and Paul states that Christ has abolished it in His flesh.

This does not contradict God's promise to the house of Israel and the house of Judah when He states:

Jer 31:31-32 "Behold, the days come, says the LORD, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah,

not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says the LORD;"

The New Covenant is not according to the Mosaic Covenant - it has a different basis. The basis for the New Covenant is the obedience of Christ, the last Adam, who is also the Son of Man, Who perfectly obeyed the Law contained in the Mosaic Covenant, and taught us its meaning in His summation when He stated that all the Law and the commandments hang on the commandment to love God and neighbor.

Paul teaches that the laws contained in ordinances which formed the basis of the Mosaic covenant proved unfit for purpose - not because there was anything wrong with the Mosaic Law, but because there was something wrong with humanity - so Jesus came and fulfilled it, took the punishment for our sins upon Himself, died, and rose again.

So which Laws are written by God upon the hearts of those who belong to Christ and who abide in Him? Christ tells us Himself which Laws, and so does Paul:

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."

There is absolutely no reason why God would put all the 631 ordinances, laws and commandments which form the basis of the Mosaic Covenant, which was broken through the elect's disobedience and which has been replaced by the New Covenant, into the hearts and minds of those who belong to Christ, and expect them to obey them all - when all this has been fulfilled in and by Christ, who is the last Adam, and those Mosaic laws and ordinances were "a shadow of things to come" and were abolished in the flesh of Christ.

Paul also taught us in 1Tim 1:5 that: "the end (Greek: telos) of the commandment is love out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned,"

05056 G5056 τέλος telos tel'-os
From a primary word τέλλω tellō (to set out for a definite point or goal); properly the point aimed at as a limit that is (by implication) the conclusion of an act or state (termination [literally figuratively or indefinitely] result [immediate ultimate or prophetic] purpose); specifically an impost or levy (as paid): - + continual custom end (-ing) finally uttermost. Compare G5411.

Not only is there absolutely no reason why the Mosaic Covenant with its 631 laws and observances of days, new moons, feasts and sabbaths needs to reinstated "in the hearts of those who belong to Christ" after having been abolished in the flesh of Christ, but Paul states very clearly that these are not reinstated (even though it is debated all the time what Paul "means" by his statements).

SO WHAT LAW IS WRITTEN BY GOD ON THE HEARTS OF THOSE WHO BELONG TO CHRIST?

The summation of all the Law, as Jesus and His apostles gave it.

I'm not going to quote all the rest of your post because we both realize we disagree on this point - but I want to say something about what you say below:

So my advice to you would be: IF you see anyone attempting to earn their salvation by doing right, share with them the good news that salvation is by grace through faith in accepting the perfect life of Christ applied to their benefit.

That's what my OP is about. Only about that. It's not about this:

BUT, if you see anyone attempting to more perfectly imitate their Savior by living as He did (observing the calendar He observed, eating only those foods He ate, etc.) out of their love for Him, bless them in their journey, and look to collaborate with them, as there are most certainly areas where you are more perfectly walking in the Spirit and areas where they are more perfectly walking in the Spirit, and we are both called to "exhort one another daily, and all the more as we see the Day approaching."

The only way to more perfectly imitate our Savior is to follow Him into the same rejection, persecution and cruel death He went through on our behalf (to "take up our cross and follow Him). It's a total and absolute fallacy to say that observing Torah in the ways you mentioned is "more perfectly imitating the Savior". Where did He tell His disciples to do that? Where did His apostles tell His disciples to do that?

Nevertheless, to talk about the spirit you are talking about:

I'm a Gentile and therefore enjoy Christmas. I do not deny anyone, especially the Jews, the right to enjoy the mo'adim (appointed times of the LORD) which are part of their culture, in the same way. Not only is this the case, but I have the same respect for, and appreciation of, the meaning of the so-called "Jewish" holidays that many Gentiles who celebrate them do - but Christ did not die and rise again so that we can be brought under bondage again to "observe Torah". The very same people who attempt to bully other Christians into "observing Torah" are the ones who are always telling Gentile Christians how "pagan" their Christmas celebration is, etc (among other things).

All those appointed times and the entire Old Testament are instruction to us in many ways - but they are not laws which Gentiles should be bullied into following, believing that the Torah is to be observed forever or God is displeased. Not even Jewish believers should believe they are obligated to obey Torah. The only law any person who belongs to Christ is expected to obey, is the only law that God writes on the hearts and puts in the minds of those who belong to Christ - which is Jesus' and His apostles' summation of the Law.

 

[Zao is life]

In this case I think it is good to remember what Jesus said:

Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill. For most assuredly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. 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

If we love God, we keep God’s commandments.

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous.
1 John 5:3

Post #92.

 

[Adamina]

No post.....off topic

 

[literaryjoe]

I know this was not directed at me, but if I may moot an answer: No, at least not in full. The Law of Moses contains many elements that have no apparent moral content, such as a law about mixing cloth. Plus, the Law of Moses were given to Jews and Jews only, at least in part for the purpose of setting them apart as a distinct people (see Leviticus 20:25). So while the Law of Moses obviously has a moral dimension it is not simply an encoding of some kind of eternal moral law. Beside, a strong case can be made that once Israel had completed its task of being a "blessing to the nations", which was finished at the cross, their ethnic charter - the Law of Moses - was no longer needed.

Plus, I think you would be hard-pressed to argue that we should build another temple and start slaughtering animals on the alter.

This is a complex matter but I suggest it is pretty clear that the Law of Moses is not something that we should be following item by item. And there are 613 of them, many of which would land your hiney in jail if you tried to do them in modern society.

Likewise, not directed at me, expose4ever, but if I might suggest a different way of looking at this...

Israel's mission of being a "blessing to the nations" was not finished at the cross but expanded to the nations. The promises of blessing/salvation in Scripture are not made to anyone but Israel, and we participate in them by virtue of being "in Christ" and thus included in the "commonwealth of Israel." Without that vital connection, we are "strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." So Israel's mission is also now our mission; we are now to be distinct from the world, no longer following its course, no longer living according to the passions of our flesh, but now: Jew and Gentile together, being built up into a holy temple in the Lord. All who are sons of Abraham by faith, are to be distinct from the world, to imitate God's character, rather than "following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience," we are with Israel now to be a "royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession. ... Once we were not a people, but now we are God's people." (1 Peter 2:9)

So we do still need to wrestle with things like how does the law against mixing wool and linen apply to us? First, we might note that this is a matter of identity, of something God doesn't want us to forget: you are Mine. By command, only the priests were to wear clothing that mixed wool and linen, and yet as a reminder that they were all a "nation of priests", the Israelites were commanded to append a fringe woven of wool and linen to their regular garments.

It is instructive to note that at the time, all peoples in the Ancient Near East wore fringes on their garments, but the Israelites' fringes were distinctive. Not just distinct from the people around them, but also distinct in reminding them that they were God's people, and they were to keep His commandments. The fringes or hem also served as a personal signature, just like signet rings would come to do in time. So when a contract was being signed, one would press the fringe of your garment into the wax or clay to serve as your sign of agreement. What a perfect time to be reminded not to have dishonest weights and measures, or not to charge interest to your fellow believer. I don't know about you, but I've been involved in some contracts with fellow Christians where I sure wish they had been reminded of their responsibility before God!

So how should we keep that commandment? I don't know about you, but I've never run into a shirt made out of a combination of wool and linen, so no threat there. We note that God's people had a distinct version of what everyone around them also wore, so what if we put a distinct logo on the sleeve of our shirts? Instead of a Ralph Lauren logo or a Maple Leafs logo, what if we had a small white dove on a blue background? Imagine the community-building nature of this; the accountability it provides! Nothing God commanded was without purpose, and it was all for the good of His beloved people.

Does the law of Moses say that an adulterer ought to be stoned? It also says that this cannot be carried out without two or three eye witnesses, nor by an individual, but as the consequence of a judicial panel having weighed the evidence and issued a ruling, where the witnesses then cast the first stone (talk about an impediment to giving false witness!) and the community joins in collectively, saying by their actions, "we will not tolerate this type of anti-God behavior in our midst."

Imagine the impact something aligned with these principles would have on our present (in)justice system! Prisons (which enslave humans and punish the victim by forcing them to now support the criminal via taxes--the exact opposite of God's system, which requires the criminal to make restitution to the victim) would be eliminated, the miscarriage of justice would be dramatically curtailed, communities would be unified in expectation of acceptable behavior, crime would drop precipitously, those convicted would not be mistreated, except for heinous transgressions that directly mar or destroy the image of God in a human (rape, murder, etc.) criminals would be restored to societal function and participation.

We desperately need a reformation of Western society in alignment with the commandments of God. God's commandments identify the ideal toward which we ought to be working. They tells us what is good and what is evil; to ignore them is to repeat Adam and Eve's mistake in the Garden: to presume that we know better than God.

Why did God say not to sow two kinds of seed in a field? I have no idea, but I guarantee that if we explore and practice this we will discover it prevents some negative and promotes some good. If only we knew what the Creator knows! The way God's laws were to make His people distinct was to cause them to thrive, so that the people watching might think, "'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.'" Would we not want that today? Might we practice it in context of local community? We no longer have a nation identifiable as "Christian" but we do have communities that advertise on public signs that we belong to the King of the world. Imagine if we lived according to His wisdom... The people watching might think, "I want to be a part of that community!"

I'm not suggesting every detail of the Torah is directly applicable, but that whatever we can appropriate to our circumstances will be for our good. We have the freedom to try and fail here, folks. There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. And after all, the righteous man falls seven times and gets up yet again.

 

[Zao is life]

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.

The fact is the NT writers say a lot of good stuf about the law outside of the contexts of justification and righteousness. The law is good when used lawfully, for example. The law is not only good but righteous and holy. So again I ask how can something inspired, holy, good, righteous, and lawful be "forever unfit for purpose"? Well, the answer lies in the fact that its unfitness is limited to the means of justification and righteousness and not all other aspects of its purpose.


My regrets, but gotta go. I'll attend to the rest of the post later when I have some time to do so.

No problem. Then I will wait for you to finish your post without answering.

 

[Zao is life]

Deleted

 

[Adamina]

Anyway that's a topic for another thread. I'm just not following where your comparison with Lazarus and the rich man has anything to do with the Law and the Mosaic Covenant.

I can respect that and I deleted the post.

 

[Zao is life]

I can respect that and I deleted the post.

Unlucky for me if I'm allowed to do that I don't know how. I've been busy with a reply or post and can't even see a button where I can cancel before posting it, let alone deleting it.

Just realized if I can't delete it I can delete everything in it, so deleted my reply to your deleted post.

 

[Swag365]

While this question was not directed at me, let me try to very concisely summarize my take on why the Law of Moses is now retired.

The Law of Moses was given to the Jews and the Jews only (this is abundantly clear even though some will vigorously deny it) as part of a grand redemption plan. That plan reached its climax at the Cross, hence the Law of Moses is no longer needed. And the guiding role that the Law played is now the role of the Holy Spirit.

Thank you. Much appreciated. Are there specific Christian denominations that still hold that the law of Moses is applicable to Christians?

I would say that there is a new law that is primarily a law that is placed on our hearts, but in a secondary sense there are still certain specific requirements that can be written (such as not murdering, committing adultery, etc.) I think we can use our intellect to discern that those things are wrong and should not do them so as to not offend God, regardless of whether the Holy Spirit specifically prompts us not to do them.

 

[Josheb]

The fact that all scripture is inspired by God and is useful does not mean every command and edict applies eternally.

I completely agree. We know, for example, that after our resurrection we will be like the angels and not marrying. Therefore all the laws about marriage will be moot. However, that does not mean the principles ensconsed in those laws will no longer be applicable. The law of love is certainly an ontological, existential, and teleological aspect of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and that will not cease to be the case on the other side of the grave (because of immutability).

Scripture presents an evolving redemption narrative - things change.

Some things change.

Surely you believe in the "old covenant - new covenant" distinction?

Yes, but perhaps not as you conceive it. All of the covenants of the Bible are simply various diverse and progressive foreshadowings of the singular covenant found in Christ; one first foreshadowed with Genesis 1:28 and 2:17, as well as Genesis 3:15 and 1 Peter 1:19-20. We should not think that just because the word "covenant" was used in Eden that a covenant relationship did not exist. God selected and separated (chosen and holy) Adam and Eve and then tells them, "Here's what I want you to do (their purpose) and if you disobey Me you'll die" (the consequences), and because of 1 Peter 1:19-20 we know that purposeful and consequential relationship with God was tied to Jesus and that tie was "foreknown before the creation of the world" (before a single human ever existed, before a single sin had ever been conceived, much less committed). Likewise, we see the same commands issued to Noah and we understand the covenants with Abraham, Moses, and David are all tied to Jesus' incarnation, death, and resurrection. The New Testament (new covenant) tells us all of this fairly plainly and explicitly.

Acts 2:29-31
"29“Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, 31he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. "​

David was speaking about the resurrection of Christ. David was speaking about the new covenant in an old covenant era. David was speaking about the (new) covenant in Christ looonng before God ever spoke Jeremiah 31:31ff or Hosea 2:23.

Dispensationalists see this differently but I have just laid out the scriptures testifying to what I posted.

Well, if we used your "all scripture is inspired...." text the way you are using it against my position, such a distinction would dissolve. IOW, using your implied argument, someone could say that all the provisions of the old covenant remain in force since "ALL Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness"

Surely you don't believe this, do you?

I have already addressed this concern. Read my posts. Please don't post as if that isn't the case or ask questions already answered. I will take that as a sign of inauthenticity. I have already stated at least twice now the specified limits of the law in both Paul and James are justification and righteousness, so it cannot rationally be claimed I've implied "all the provisions of the old covenant remain in force" when I have stated the exact opposite. That would be an obvious, undeniable, irrefutable misrepresentation of what I have posted explicitly.

Paul explains to Timothy how and why the OT remains applicable. No one should imagine I think otherwise or read anything else into that text than what is plainly stated.

 

[Josheb]

The fact that Paul occasionally obeys the Law of Moses can be explained by:

1. Pragmatics: even if he believes, as I am sure that he does, that the time of the Law is over, he does not want to offend his fellow Jews.

2. Timing: while Paul does indeed believe the Law is coming to an end, it's end is marked out in time by the very recent work of Jesus: For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. Given that this has just happened, there is a confusing transition period and, for practical reasons, Paul sometimes defers to the Law of Moses.

Which would be you 1) reading into the text(s) things never stated and 2) ignoring what is stated in the text.

I am not sure I understand your "justification" and "righteousness" argument: For Paul, I believe these two concepts cash out to the same thing.

They are not identical but they are inextricable. No one is nor can be saved without justification nor righteousness. The intrinsic and inextricable nature of those two conditions does not make them identical. Justification is a legal matter, for example. Righteousness is about rightness and is much more than simply a legal matter. I have covered this in earlier posts by noting the diverse definitions scripture asserts for sin (sin is not solely a matter of lawlessness).

And even if they don't I don't see how this distinction bears on the matter of whether the Law still applies.

Hmmmm... I assume that is a figure of speech because if you really truly do not understand then you have no business telling any poster what to believe, nor is there any basis for questioning any post's content. You don't understand!

So I'll assume that was intended colloquially and move on. 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 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).

Yes, Paul and James appeal to the Old Testament. But I see no texts where they indicate that the Law of Moses still applies going forward.

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.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ Actually dear friend all lawlessness is sin (Compare 1 JOHN 3:4 with other parrallel translations). Lawlessness means without law (disobedience to God's law). The bible definition of sin is breaking anyone of God's 10 Commandments *JAMES 2:10-11 and not believing God's Word *ROMANS 14:23. So yes dear friend if we break anyone of God's 10 commandments we commit sin. This is shown by PAUL also in ROMANS 7:7.

Your response...

There are a number of problems here. First, a clarification: When the author of 1 John declares that sin is "lawlessness", you cannot simply assume that the "law" in question is the Law of Moses.

Here are your problems:

1. James 2:10-11 does not define sin as breaking any one of the 10 commandments:

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not commit murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.

All the author is claiming here is that if you violate one element of the Law of Moses, you are a transgressor of the Law of Moses. It certainly does not logically following that sin is defined exclusively relative to the Law of Moses.

2. Romans 14:23, equally, does not support the notion that sin is only defined relative to the Law of Moses. Here is the text:

But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

Where do you get the idea that sin is being defined relative to the Law of Moses?

3. Romans 7:7 does indeed connect knowledge of sin to the Law of Moses, but Paul is talking about the past:

I would not have come to know sin except through the Law...

Paul quite clearly looks to the Spirit now, not the Law as he did in the past.

Not really dear friend. There was no assuming anything or was there any problems with the scriptures provided to you that define that sin is breaking anyone of God's 10 commandments and not believing God's Word as shown in ROMANS 3:20; ROMANS 7:7; 1 JOHN 3:4, JAMES 2:10-11 and ROMANS 14:23.

Here is the scripture proof why...

Paul tells us that God's LAW gives us a knowledge of what sin is here...

ROMANS 3:20 [20], THEREFORE BY THE DEEDS OF THE LAW THERE SHALL NO FLESH BE JUSTIFIED IN HIS SIGHT: FOR BY THE LAW IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN.

Paul continues this same thought that God's law gives us the knowledge of what sin is when broken and clarifies that sin is breaking God's 10 commandments here...

ROMANS 7:7, What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. No, I HAD NOT KNOWN SIN, BUT BY THE LAW: FOR I HAD NOT KNOWN LUST, EXCEPT THE LAW HAD SAID, THOU SHALL NOT COVET.

Paul shows here that the 10 Commandments give us knowledge of what sin is when broken and directly quotes God's 10th commandment from EXODUS 20:17.

JAMES agrees with what PAUL is saying above and writes if we break anyone of God's 10 commandments we are a transgressor of God's law which Paul shows above is sin...

JAMES 2:10-11 [10], For WHOEVER SHALL KEEP THE WHOLE LAW, AND YET OFFEND IN ONE POINT, HE IS GUILTY OF ALL. [11], For he that said, DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, SAID ALSO, DO NOT KILL. NOW IF YOU COMMIT NO ADULTERY, YET IF YOU KILL, YOU ARE BECOME A TRANSGRESSOR OF THE LAW.

What JAMES says here by stating that if we break anyone of God's 10 commandments we have become a TRANSGRESSOR of God's LAW John also agrees with here and says that if we TRANSGRESS Gods' LAW WE COMMIT SIN here...

1 JOHN 3:4 [4], WHOEVER COMMITS SIN TRANSGRESSES ALSO THE LAW: FOR SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW.

JOHN defines TRANSGRESSING God's LAW as SIN! PAULS states that through God's LAW we have a knowledge of what SIN is. God's WORD (not mine) defines SIN as breaking anyone of God's 10 commandments dear friend and not believing God's Word *ROMANS 3:20; ROMANS 7:7; JAMES 2:10-11; 1 JOHN 3:4. The above subject matter to these scriptures are in direct reference to God's 10 commandments with the examples of coveting, murder and adultery given.

These are God's Word dear friend and they disagree with you. I pray you may receive this correction in the Spirit it was intended. In love and as a help and blessing only.

May you receive God's Word and be blessed.

 

[literaryjoe]

Up to the last line in the above part of your post, we agree. However, with regard to this:

I'm assuming you're talking about the contents of the Mosaic Covenant made with the people at Sinai (not the Abrahamic Covenant)

Yes, although I would say the contents of the Abrahamic covenant are also the same. After all, God can say about Abraham, "...Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." (Gen 26:5), also we note that Noah already knew which animals were permissible for eating and sacrifice and which were not, long before either Moses or Abraham.

This is where it gets "controversial", where you an I start parting paths regarding what constitutes the Law written by God upon the hearts of those who belong to Christ. So for this post, let's call the covenant of God with Abraham "The Abrahamic Covenant" and the Covenant God made with the people at Sinai "the Mosaic Covenant" (just for clarity, so that we stay on the same page):

works for me

So let's start with noting that the Law contained in the Mosaic Covenant, and the people's obedience to it (not only that Law, but also the people's obedience to it, because of the nature of the covenant, where God promised abundance of blessing and the right to live in the land for their obedience, and curses and exile from the land for their disobedience, and the promise of the people to obey), is the basis of the Mosaic Covenant which we now call "the Old Covenant.

Here we've bumped into the crux of the challenge in understanding. The Mosaic Covenant could relate to any individual as the Old Covenant or the New Covenant, depending on its application. To Phinehas , Moses, or Joshua, for example, it served as part of the New Covenant, but for Korah or the man through whom Phinehas drove the spear into the ground it served as the Old Covenant (making presumptions here about who is “saved” and who is not). In Scripture, the "Old Covenant" refers to any attempt to engage in relationship with God on the basis of our own effort, while “New Covenant” refers to the relationship with God established by God with anyone who depends on Him and Him alone for their salvation.

This is an inescapable conclusion. There never has been a time, and there never will be a time when human effort could suffice to obtain salvation. There is no other option but that all who are saved were/are New Covenant participants. The failure to wrestle with this reality causes all kinds of confusion.

It might help to think of the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants as individual mini-covenants within the over-arching SuperCovenant, aka: the New Covenant (or even Covenant of Redemption or Covenant of Grace, if some prefer). The identification of Old vs. New covenant is not based on time, but on relationship: are you in Messiah, or on your own?

Hopefully, this will make it easier to understand when I contradict some of your claims below.

Paul first states that that covenant, which includes the laws and precepts which form the basis of it, has been abolished in the body of Christ, and there is a new Law:

Rom 8:2 "But the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death."

Then he explains:

Rom 8:3 "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh;"

This quite simply is not what Paul states. Nowhere in Romans 7 or 8 does Paul equate his use of “law” with the covenant. Rather, he is speaking of the nature of one’s relationship to a thing. It’s a bit frustrating because he is all over the place, using the same word at one moment to refer to this and at the next moment to refer to that, but at all times he is ultimately describing whether we have an old man or new man relationship to the law of God. This becomes extraordinarily clear as he moves into what we call chapter 8.

A new man, having died with Christ and now being resurrected with Christ is “born again” and no longer has the old relationship of condemnation to the “law of sin and death” (a relationship to the law that seeks to provide justification), but now relates to the law “in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.”

This all culminates in the climax of Paul’s point, that being freed from a relationship to the law of condemnation, we are now enlivened by the Spirit, so that while a mind set on the flesh is hostile to God (“for it does not submit to God’s law, indeed, it cannot”), those who not in the flesh but in the Spirit do please God and can submit to God’s law, indeed (v4) the “righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

So quite contrary to how you’re reading it, there is no abolishing of “the law” or any “new law” except as our new relationship to the same law moves it from functioning in our lives as the “law of sin and death” to the “law of God.” So then, Paul says, “I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve(ed) the law of sin.”

and elsewhere he states,

Eph 2:15 "(Christ), having abolished in His flesh the enmity (the Law of commandments contained in ordinances) .."

Paul actually defines the enmity in the above verse as "the Law of commandments contained in ordinances", and Paul states that Christ has abolished it in His flesh.

Ah, yes, good ole Eph 2:14-15. I would ask you to consider some observations about this text and ask yourself whether the way you’re reading it is even possible.

What is it that God abolished? The text answers: “the dividing wall of hostility/enmity”. There is no connecting word, Paul simply continues “ton nomon entolon en dogmasin katargesas...” the law of commandments in ordinances invalidated.” So we must ask, IF Paul is referring to “God’s law,” what he elsewhere calls “nomo tou theo”, where in Scripture is this enmity between Jew and Gentile that Jesus has cancelled in his flesh? It doesn’t exist; one cannot find it. That’s because what is being referred to by this unique phrase (ton nomon entolon en dogmasin) is human accretions to God’s law: man-made customs that divided Jew from Gentile. God’s law, on the other hand, said: “For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the LORD. One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you.” (Numbers 15:15–16)

This does not contradict God's promise to the house of Israel and the house of Judah when He states:

Jer 31:31-32 "Behold, the days come, says the LORD, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah,

not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says the LORD;"

The New Covenant is not according to the Mosaic Covenant - it has a different basis. The basis for the New Covenant is the obedience of Christ, the last Adam, who is also the Son of Man, Who perfectly obeyed the Law contained in the Mosaic Covenant, and taught us its meaning in His summation when He stated that all the Law and the commandments hang on the commandment to love God and neighbor.

This is probably a good time to mention that you keep quoting Jeremiah 31:32 incorrectly. It does not say, “not according to the covenant”, but “lo kabberith” or “not like the covenant”. In other words, it’s not an abandoment of the previous pattern, but a contrast in distinction, which is followed by a description of the manner in which it is different (and consequently also the ways in which it is the same, for other than what is listed it retains the same qualities, which can be shown via comparison in addition to by logic. The contrast is: they broke; I will never. Their promise is unsure; my promise is certain. I will [take the necessary actions].

Paul teaches that the laws contained in ordinances which formed the basis of the Mosaic covenant proved unfit for purpose

this is a claim you have not substantiated, which is controversial, and which I have shown above is impossible.

- not because there was anything wrong with the Mosaic Law, but because there was something wrong with humanity - so Jesus came and fulfilled it, took the punishment for our sins upon Himself, died, and rose again.

Agreed.

So which Laws are written by God upon the hearts of those who belong to Christ and who abide in Him? Christ tells us Himself which Laws, and so does Paul:

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."

and as I have previously demonstrated, this is a summation of the entire law, not an abridgement.

There is absolutely no reason why God would put all the 631 ordinances, laws and commandments which form the basis of the Mosaic Covenant, which was broken through the elect's disobedience and which has been replaced by the New Covenant, into the hearts and minds of those who belong to Christ, and expect them to obey them all - when all this has been fulfilled in and by Christ, who is the last Adam, and those Mosaic laws and ordinances were "a shadow of things to come" and were abolished in the flesh of Christ.

and as I have previously shown to “fulfill” does not mean to cancel, but to keep in full, not so that we might live differently than did Jesus, but so that we might be empowered to live as He lived: lawfully.

Paul also taught us in 1Tim 1:5 that: "the end (Greek: telos) of the commandment is love out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned,"

05056 G5056 τέλος telos tel'-os

From a primary word τέλλω tellō (to set out for a definite point or goal); properly the point aimed at as a limit that is (by implication) the conclusion of an act or state (termination [literally figuratively or indefinitely] result [immediate ultimate or prophetic] purpose); specifically an impost or levy (as paid): - + continual custom end (-ing) finally uttermost. Compare G5411.

yep, the goal at which the law of God points is the life of Christ...in us, not just in Him.

Not only is there absolutely no reason why the Mosaic Covenant with its 631 laws and observances of days, new moons, feasts and sabbaths needs to reinstated "in the hearts of those who belong to Christ" after having been abolished in the flesh of Christ, but Paul states very clearly that these are not reinstated (even though it is debated all the time what Paul "means" by his statements).

more controversy. This assertion holds no weight; it flies in the face of human nature and practice. Below you mention Christmas, in the US we observe Independence Day. Imagine if I practiced the approach you describe immediately above... I would forsake both Christmas and Independence Day because “they’ve already been fulfilled...there is absolutely no reason they should be reinstated.” When the reality is that we obviously observe these days in order to honor/celebrate what has been done, what now informs our existence and identity, and which we are grateful for and do not want to forget. If that is true for July 4, how much more so for those days/events that occasioned our salvation?! We don’t observe them to cause, but in memoriam; that sounds familiar... oh yeah, “this do in remembrance of me.” Sounds like a healthy pattern to me.

I'm not going to quote all the rest of your post because we both realize we disagree on this point - but I want to say something about what you say below:

That's what my OP is about. Only about that. It's not about this:

But it could be, and that is what I urge upon you. Open the eyes of your heart and see. I’m not denigrating what you have grasped so well, but inviting you to see more.

The only way to more perfectly imitate our Savior is to follow Him into the same rejection, persecution and cruel death He went through on our behalf (to "take up our cross and follow Him). It's a total and absolute fallacy to say that observing Torah in the ways you mentioned is "more perfectly imitating the Savior". Where did He tell His disciples to do that? Where did His apostles tell His disciples to do that?

Wow, just wow. Let’s look at that statement anew: "it is an absolute fallacy to say that [living in the same manner Jesus did] is 'more perfectly imitating the Savior.'”? Really? I’m sorry, but that doesn’t pass the sniff test, as they say.

Nevertheless, to talk about the spirit you are talking about:

I'm a Gentile and therefore enjoy Christmas. I do not deny anyone, especially the Jews, the right to enjoy the mo'adim (appointed times of the LORD) which are part of their culture, in the same way. Not only is this the case, but I have the same respect for, and appreciation of, the meaning of the so-called "Jewish" holidays that many Gentiles who celebrate them do - but Christ did not die and rise again so that we can be brought under bondage again to "observe Torah". The very same people who attempt to bully other Christians into "observing Torah" are the ones who are always telling Gentile Christians how "pagan" their Christmas celebration is, etc (among other things).

All those appointed times and the entire Old Testament are instruction to us in many ways - but they are not laws which Gentiles should be bullied into following, believing that the Torah is to be observed forever or God is displeased. Not even Jewish believers should believe they are obligated to obey Torah. The only law any person who belongs to Christ is expected to obey, is the only law that God writes on the hearts and puts in the minds of those who belong to Christ - which is Jesus' and His apostles' summation of the Law.

I too am a Gentile; I also observe Christmas (how could we permit the Incarnation to go unobserved?! The idea seems to me the height of ingratitude). I’m grateful that you permit others to celebrate what God has done on their behalf (Jew and Gentile) in the moedim, which are, yes, part of Jewish culture, but also part of our culture as those who are part of the commonwealth of Israel by faith/adoption. The Old Testament is, after all, Christian scripture, and the Lord stated unequivocally that the moedim are His appointed times.

No believer is obligated to obey any instruction, except by way of gratitude and loyalty, and the various summaries of God’s laws, which occur both in the Old Testament and in the New are just that: summaries; by definition they cannot replace, truncate, or cancel the instruction/torah of God which echoes from Genesis to Revelation, and instructs all the redeemed, as the overwhelming majority of God’s people across the centuries and in every place have always believed.

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!

 

[pasifika]

Yes, although I would say the contents of the Abrahamic covenant are also the same. After all, God can say about Abraham, "...Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." (Gen 26:5), also we note that Noah already knew which animals were permissible for eating and sacrifice and which were not, long before either Moses or Abraham.

works for me

Here we've bumped into the crux of the challenge in understanding. The Mosaic Covenant could relate to any individual as the Old Covenant or the New Covenant, depending on its application. To Phinehas , Moses, or Joshua, for example, it served as part of the New Covenant, but for Korah or the man through whom Phinehas drove the spear into the ground it served as the Old Covenant (making presumptions here about who is “saved” and who is not). In Scripture, the "Old Covenant" refers to any attempt to engage in relationship with God on the basis of our own effort, while “New Covenant” refers to the relationship with God established by God with anyone who depends on Him and Him alone for their salvation.

This is an inescapable conclusion. There never has been a time, and there never will be a time when human effort could suffice to obtain salvation. There is no other option but that all who are saved were/are New Covenant participants. The failure to wrestle with this reality causes all kinds of confusion.

It might help to think of the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants as individual mini-covenants within the over-arching SuperCovenant, aka: the New Covenant (or even Covenant of Redemption or Covenant of Grace, if some prefer). The identification of Old vs. New covenant is not based on time, but on relationship: are you in Messiah, or on your own?

Hopefully, this will make it easier to understand when I contradict some of your claims below.

This quite simply is not what Paul states. Nowhere in Romans 7 or 8 does Paul equate his use of “law” with the covenant. Rather, he is speaking of the nature of one’s relationship to a thing. It’s a bit frustrating because he is all over the place, using the same word at one moment to refer to this and at the next moment to refer to that, but at all times he is ultimately describing whether we have an old man or new man relationship to the law of God. This becomes extraordinarily clear as he moves into what we call chapter 8.

A new man, having died with Christ and now being resurrected with Christ is “born again” and no longer has the old relationship of condemnation to the “law of sin and death” (a relationship to the law that seeks to provide justification), but now relates to the law “in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.”

This all culminates in the climax of Paul’s point, that being freed from a relationship to the law of condemnation, we are now enlivened by the Spirit, so that while a mind set on the flesh is hostile to God (“for it does not submit to God’s law, indeed, it cannot”), those who not in the flesh but in the Spirit do please God and can submit to God’s law, indeed (v4) the “righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

So quite contrary to how you’re reading it, there is no abolishing of “the law” or any “new law” except as our new relationship to the same law moves it from functioning in our lives as the “law of sin and death” to the “law of God.” So then, Paul says, “I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve(ed) the law of sin.”

Ah, yes, good ole Eph 2:14-15. I would ask you to consider some observations about this text and ask yourself whether the way you’re reading it is even possible.

What is it that God abolished? The text answers: “the dividing wall of hostility/enmity”. There is no connecting word, Paul simply continues “ton nomon entolon en dogmasin katargesas...” the law of commandments in ordinances invalidated.” So we must ask, IF Paul is referring to “God’s law,” what he elsewhere calls “nomo tou theo”, where in Scripture is this enmity between Jew and Gentile that Jesus has cancelled in his flesh? It doesn’t exist; one cannot find it. That’s because what is being referred to by this unique phrase (ton nomon entolon en dogmasin) is human accretions to God’s law: man-made customs that divided Jew from Gentile. God’s law, on the other hand, said: “For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the LORD. One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you.” (Numbers 15:15–16)

This is probably a good time to mention that you keep quoting Jeremiah 31:32 incorrectly. It does not say, “not according to the covenant”, but “lo kabberith” or “not like the covenant”. In other words, it’s not an abandoment of the previous pattern, but a contrast in distinction, which is followed by a description of the manner in which it is different (and consequently also the ways in which it is the same, for other than what is listed it retains the same qualities, which can be shown via comparison in addition to by logic. The contrast is: they broke; I will never. Their promise is unsure; my promise is certain. I will [take the necessary actions].

this is a claim you have not substantiated, which is controversial, and which I have shown above is impossible.

Agreed.

and as I have previously demonstrated, this is a summation of the entire law, not an abridgement.

and as I have previously shown to “fulfill” does not mean to cancel, but to keep in full, not so that we might live differently than did Jesus, but so that we might be empowered to live as He lived: lawfully.

yep, the goal at which the law of God points is the life of Christ...in us, not just in Him.

more controversy. This assertion holds no weight; it flies in the face of human nature and practice. Below you mention Christmas, in the US we observe Independence Day. Imagine if I practiced the approach you describe immediately above... I would forsake both Christmas and Independence Day because “they’ve already been fulfilled...there is absolutely no reason they should be reinstated.” When the reality is that we obviously observe these days in order to honor/celebrate what has been done, what now informs our existence and identity, and which we are grateful for and do not want to forget. If that is true for July 4, how much more so for those days/events that occasioned our salvation?! We don’t observe them to cause, but in memoriam; that sounds familiar... oh yeah, “this do in remembrance of me.” Sounds like a healthy pattern to me.

But it could be, and that is what I urge upon you. Open the eyes of your heart and see. I’m not denigrating what you have grasped so well, but inviting you to see more.

Wow, just wow. Let’s look at that statement anew: "it is an absolute fallacy to say that [living in the same manner Jesus did] is 'more perfectly imitating the Savior.'”? Really? I’m sorry, but that doesn’t pass the sniff test, as they say.

I too am a Gentile; I also observe Christmas (how could we permit the Incarnation to go unobserved?! The idea seems to me the height of ingratitude). I’m grateful that you permit others to celebrate what God has done on their behalf (Jew and Gentile) in the moedim, which are, yes, part of Jewish culture, but also part of our culture as those who are part of the commonwealth of Israel by faith/adoption. The Old Testament is, after all, Christian scripture, and the Lord stated unequivocally that the moedim are His appointed times.

No believer is obligated to obey any instruction, except by way of gratitude and loyalty, and the various summaries of God’s laws, which occur both in the Old Testament and in the New are just that: summaries; by definition they cannot replace, truncate, or cancel the instruction/torah of God which echoes from Genesis to Revelation, and instructs all the redeemed, as the overwhelming majority of God’s people across the centuries and in every place have always believed.

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!

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..