To What Extent are we Bound by God’s Law?

newton3005

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2019
646
166
60
newburgh
✟113,995.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
To what extent are we bound by the law? Is there a contradiction in the passages of the New Testament? Lord Jesus in Matthew 5:17-19 says “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Jesus says he comes not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. We might infer that since Jesus does not intend to abolish the Law, the Law still exists. It may not be needed by Jesus since he has fulfilled the Law, so who does the Law exist for? Verse 19 makes it plain that exists for the rest of us...Those of us who disregard the least of the “commandments,” will be called least into the Kingdom of Heaven.

So why does Romans 7:6 say that we are “released from the Law”? Where is the consistency between that, and Matthew 5:17-19? Is Matthew 5:19 a key? There, Jesus seems to infer that when all is accomplished, there will no longer be any need for the Law. But a person’s relationship with God is an individual matter. Because of that, the Law cannot be swept away on a wholesale basis, but according to individual by individual.

Where does the “fulfillment” come in for each of us? When might each of us be “released from the Law”? Seems that both are achieved when we establish our faith in God. It is at that point that each of us is released from “the elementary Doctrine f Christ,” as mentioned in Hebrews 6:1. At that point, we go on from just drinking the milk of God to eating real food.

But what does faith in God entail? If we just say “Lord, Lord” without doing God’s Will, is our faith in God established? Jesus in Matthew 7:21 infers that it doesn’t, at least to the extent that we do not do God’s Will.

Is doing God’s Will not a matter of works? Our works mean nothing if it is not out of our faith in God. It seems that our works may be a function of our seeing the Light of God, but our faith in God isn’t established until those works are performed. Some have said that whatever works we engage in are God’s works. But regardless of who those works belong to, it is up to the individual who is endowed with the ability to perform those works, to do so in order to establish their faith in God. Each of us have been wonderfully made according to Psalms 139:14, and we have the capacity to learn, that we may be equipped to perform good works as inferred in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Romans 7 seems to infer that once our faith in God is established, through whatever means consistent with the Bible, the Law of God that the Hebrews were under is no longer necessary. But Romans 7 also serves as a reminder that the Law for each of us, to the extent that our faith may waiver due to temptation of sin, still exists to remind us that the Law has identified the sins which we may fall prey to. What then? We can ask for forgiveness. But would God grant us forgiveness if we just say, “God forgive me,” and then repeat the sin? Jesus tells us that we may forgive a person “seventy-seven times,” according to Matthew 18:22. Does that mean the same sin can be forgiven 77 times, or does it mean that 77 sins can be forgiven one time each? But the forgiveness that Jesus mentions applies to man. Do we know how many times God will forgive each of us for one sin? There seems to be no specific number in the Bible as there is in Matthew 18:22 that we can even start with. What may be more conceivable is that we each have a ledger that God examines before deciding whether we are worthy of Heaven, in which, taking everything into account, hopefully our credits exceed out debits, in matters of our faith in Hm.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,875
USA
✟580,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
To what extent are we bound by the law? Is there a contradiction in the passages of the New Testament? Lord Jesus in Matthew 5:17-19 says “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least vin the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Jesus says he comes not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. We might infer that since Jesus does not intend to abolish the Law, the Law still exists. It may not be needed by Jesus since he has fulfilled the Law, so who does the Law exist for? Verse 19 makes it plain that exists for the rest of us...Those of us who disregard the least of the “commandments,” will be called least into the Kingdom of Heaven.

So why does Romans 7:6 say that we are “released from the Law”? Where is the consistency between that, and Matthew 5:17-19? Is Matthew 5:19 a key? There, Jesus seems to infer that when all is accomplished, there will no longer be any need for the Law. But a person’s relationship with God is an individual matter. Because of that, the Law cannot be swept away on a wholesale basis, but according to individual by individual.

Where does the “fulfillment” come in for each of us? When might each of us be “released from the Law”? Seems that both are achieved when we establish our faith in God. It is at that point that each of us is released from “the elementary Doctrine f Christ,” as mentioned in Hebrews 6:1. At that point, we go on from just drinking the milk of God to eating real food.

But what does faith in God entail? If we just say “Lord, Lord” without doing God’s Will, is our faith in God established? Jesus in Matthew 7:21 infers that it doesn’t, at least to the extent that we do not do God’s Will.

Is doing God’s Will not a matter of works? Our works mean nothing if it is not out of our faith in God. It seems that our works may be a function of our seeing the Light of God, but our faith in God isn’t established until those works are performed. Some have said that whatever works we engage in are God’s works. But regardless of who those works belong to, it is up to the individual who is endowed with the ability to perform those works, to do so in order to establish their faith in God. Each of us have been wonderfully made according to Psalms 139:14, and we have the capacity to learn, that we may be equipped to perform good works as inferred in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Romans 7 seems to infer that once our faith in God is established, through whatever means consistent with the Bible, the Law of God that the Hebrews were under is no longer necessary. But Romans 7 also serves as a reminder that the Law for each of us, to the extent that our faith may waiver due to temptation of sin, still exists to remind us that the Law has identified the sins which we may fall prey to. What then? We can ask for forgiveness. But would God grant us forgiveness if we just say, “God forgive me,” and then repeat the sin? Jesus tells us that we may forgive a person “seventy-seven times,” according to Matthew 18:22. Does that mean the same sin can be forgiven 77 times, or does it mean that 77 sins can be forgiven one time each? But the forgiveness that Jesus mentions applies to man. Do we know how many times God will forgive each of us for one sin? There seems to be no specific number in the Bible as there is in Matthew 18:22 that we can even start with. What may be more conceivable is that we each have a ledger that God examines before deciding whether we are worthy of Heaven, in which, taking everything into account, hopefully our credits exceed out debits, in matters of our faith in Hm.
“Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.” Acts 15:19–20 (KJV 1900)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brian Mcnamee
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,052
East Coast
✟830,414.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
To what extent are we bound by the law? Is there a contradiction in the passages of the New Testament? Lord Jesus in Matthew 5:17-19 says “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least vin the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Jesus says he comes not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. We might infer that since Jesus does not intend to abolish the Law, the Law still exists. It may not be needed by Jesus since he has fulfilled the Law, so who does the Law exist for? Verse 19 makes it plain that exists for the rest of us...Those of us who disregard the least of the “commandments,” will be called least into the Kingdom of Heaven.

So why does Romans 7:6 say that we are “released from the Law”? Where is the consistency between that, and Matthew 5:17-19? Is Matthew 5:19 a key? There, Jesus seems to infer that when all is accomplished, there will no longer be any need for the Law. But a person’s relationship with God is an individual matter. Because of that, the Law cannot be swept away on a wholesale basis, but according to individual by individual.

Where does the “fulfillment” come in for each of us? When might each of us be “released from the Law”? Seems that both are achieved when we establish our faith in God. It is at that point that each of us is released from “the elementary Doctrine f Christ,” as mentioned in Hebrews 6:1. At that point, we go on from just drinking the milk of God to eating real food.

But what does faith in God entail? If we just say “Lord, Lord” without doing God’s Will, is our faith in God established? Jesus in Matthew 7:21 infers that it doesn’t, at least to the extent that we do not do God’s Will.

Is doing God’s Will not a matter of works? Our works mean nothing if it is not out of our faith in God. It seems that our works may be a function of our seeing the Light of God, but our faith in God isn’t established until those works are performed. Some have said that whatever works we engage in are God’s works. But regardless of who those works belong to, it is up to the individual who is endowed with the ability to perform those works, to do so in order to establish their faith in God. Each of us have been wonderfully made according to Psalms 139:14, and we have the capacity to learn, that we may be equipped to perform good works as inferred in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Romans 7 seems to infer that once our faith in God is established, through whatever means consistent with the Bible, the Law of God that the Hebrews were under is no longer necessary. But Romans 7 also serves as a reminder that the Law for each of us, to the extent that our faith may waiver due to temptation of sin, still exists to remind us that the Law has identified the sins which we may fall prey to. What then? We can ask for forgiveness. But would God grant us forgiveness if we just say, “God forgive me,” and then repeat the sin? Jesus tells us that we may forgive a person “seventy-seven times,” according to Matthew 18:22. Does that mean the same sin can be forgiven 77 times, or does it mean that 77 sins can be forgiven one time each? But the forgiveness that Jesus mentions applies to man. Do we know how many times God will forgive each of us for one sin? There seems to be no specific number in the Bible as there is in Matthew 18:22 that we can even start with. What may be more conceivable is that we each have a ledger that God examines before deciding whether we are worthy of Heaven, in which, taking everything into account, hopefully our credits exceed out debits, in matters of our faith in Hm.

This is an impressive capture of the problem. I would say we are never released from the law of love, John 13:34. When the royal law of love is kept it exceeds any specific written law, or any collection of laws, including those found in the scriptures. One could never write enough specific laws to meet all possible scenarios. But love,when kept, does good in any scenario. So, love releases us from the whole set of commandments by exceeding them. It at once frees us from the law, and yet we are bound to the law of love forever. God is love. If we abide in God, we abide in love and therein is life, forever.

As Paul might put it, we are enslaved to righteousness and in so far as we are so enslaved, we are free.
 
Upvote 0

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
9,576
7,775
63
Martinez
✟893,955.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
To what extent are we bound by the law? Is there a contradiction in the passages of the New Testament? Lord Jesus in Matthew 5:17-19 says “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least vin the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Jesus says he comes not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. We might infer that since Jesus does not intend to abolish the Law, the Law still exists. It may not be needed by Jesus since he has fulfilled the Law, so who does the Law exist for? Verse 19 makes it plain that exists for the rest of us...Those of us who disregard the least of the “commandments,” will be called least into the Kingdom of Heaven.

So why does Romans 7:6 say that we are “released from the Law”? Where is the consistency between that, and Matthew 5:17-19? Is Matthew 5:19 a key? There, Jesus seems to infer that when all is accomplished, there will no longer be any need for the Law. But a person’s relationship with God is an individual matter. Because of that, the Law cannot be swept away on a wholesale basis, but according to individual by individual.

Where does the “fulfillment” come in for each of us? When might each of us be “released from the Law”? Seems that both are achieved when we establish our faith in God. It is at that point that each of us is released from “the elementary Doctrine f Christ,” as mentioned in Hebrews 6:1. At that point, we go on from just drinking the milk of God to eating real food.

But what does faith in God entail? If we just say “Lord, Lord” without doing God’s Will, is our faith in God established? Jesus in Matthew 7:21 infers that it doesn’t, at least to the extent that we do not do God’s Will.

Is doing God’s Will not a matter of works? Our works mean nothing if it is not out of our faith in God. It seems that our works may be a function of our seeing the Light of God, but our faith in God isn’t established until those works are performed. Some have said that whatever works we engage in are God’s works. But regardless of who those works belong to, it is up to the individual who is endowed with the ability to perform those works, to do so in order to establish their faith in God. Each of us have been wonderfully made according to Psalms 139:14, and we have the capacity to learn, that we may be equipped to perform good works as inferred in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Romans 7 seems to infer that once our faith in God is established, through whatever means consistent with the Bible, the Law of God that the Hebrews were under is no longer necessary. But Romans 7 also serves as a reminder that the Law for each of us, to the extent that our faith may waiver due to temptation of sin, still exists to remind us that the Law has identified the sins which we may fall prey to. What then? We can ask for forgiveness. But would God grant us forgiveness if we just say, “God forgive me,” and then repeat the sin? Jesus tells us that we may forgive a person “seventy-seven times,” according to Matthew 18:22. Does that mean the same sin can be forgiven 77 times, or does it mean that 77 sins can be forgiven one time each? But the forgiveness that Jesus mentions applies to man. Do we know how many times God will forgive each of us for one sin? There seems to be no specific number in the Bible as there is in Matthew 18:22 that we can even start with. What may be more conceivable is that we each have a ledger that God examines before deciding whether we are worthy of Heaven, in which, taking everything into account, hopefully our credits exceed out debits, in matters of our faith in Hm.
It is the law that condems man and the prophets who warned of that condemnation. The prophets prophesied the solution, Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The law and the prophets will remain in this world as many are not under His New Covenant. Those who are in His Body have been regenerated by His Holy Spirit and have the law written in their hearts while accepting that fulfillment proclaimed by the prophets that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the risen Messiah.
Be blessed.
 
Upvote 0

Rachel20

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2020
1,954
1,443
STX
✟58,109.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
What may be more conceivable is that we each have a ledger that God examines before deciding whether we are worthy of Heaven, in which, taking everything into account, hopefully our credits exceed out debits, in matters of our faith in Hm.

I don't think it's a matter of credits exceeding debits, since we know from Revelation 21:27 that only those found written in the Lamb's Book of Life will enter heaven. I do agree there are other books (Daniel 7:10, Revelation 20:12) and scripture speaks of either our names being blotted out of the Book of Life, or our sins being blotted out (from these other books?). Since all have sinned, all need a redeemer. So if our sins are blotted out, that can mean only one thing - we have a redeemer. If our names are blotted out because of our sins, that can mean only one thing - we don't have a redeemer.

And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold.
Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin—; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.
And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.
Exodus 32:31-33

I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins: return unto me; for I have redeemed thee. Isaiah 44:22

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; Acts 3:19

He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. Revelation 3:5
 
Upvote 0

A.ModerateOne

Active Member
Supporter
Sep 24, 2018
191
129
79
Florida
✟33,541.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
To what extent are we bound by the law? Is there a contradiction in the passages of the New Testament? Lord Jesus in Matthew 5:17-19 says “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Jesus says he comes not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. We might infer that since Jesus does not intend to abolish the Law, the Law still exists. It may not be needed by Jesus since he has fulfilled the Law, so who does the Law exist for? Verse 19 makes it plain that exists for the rest of us...Those of us who disregard the least of the “commandments,” will be called least into the Kingdom of Heaven.

So why does Romans 7:6 say that we are “released from the Law”? Where is the consistency between that, and Matthew 5:17-19? Is Matthew 5:19 a key? There, Jesus seems to infer that when all is accomplished, there will no longer be any need for the Law. But a person’s relationship with God is an individual matter. Because of that, the Law cannot be swept away on a wholesale basis, but according to individual by individual.

Where does the “fulfillment” come in for each of us? When might each of us be “released from the Law”? Seems that both are achieved when we establish our faith in God. It is at that point that each of us is released from “the elementary Doctrine f Christ,” as mentioned in Hebrews 6:1. At that point, we go on from just drinking the milk of God to eating real food.

But what does faith in God entail? If we just say “Lord, Lord” without doing God’s Will, is our faith in God established? Jesus in Matthew 7:21 infers that it doesn’t, at least to the extent that we do not do God’s Will.

Is doing God’s Will not a matter of works? Our works mean nothing if it is not out of our faith in God. It seems that our works may be a function of our seeing the Light of God, but our faith in God isn’t established until those works are performed. Some have said that whatever works we engage in are God’s works. But regardless of who those works belong to, it is up to the individual who is endowed with the ability to perform those works, to do so in order to establish their faith in God. Each of us have been wonderfully made according to Psalms 139:14, and we have the capacity to learn, that we may be equipped to perform good works as inferred in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Romans 7 seems to infer that once our faith in God is established, through whatever means consistent with the Bible, the Law of God that the Hebrews were under is no longer necessary. But Romans 7 also serves as a reminder that the Law for each of us, to the extent that our faith may waiver due to temptation of sin, still exists to remind us that the Law has identified the sins which we may fall prey to. What then? We can ask for forgiveness. But would God grant us forgiveness if we just say, “God forgive me,” and then repeat the sin? Jesus tells us that we may forgive a person “seventy-seven times,” according to Matthew 18:22. Does that mean the same sin can be forgiven 77 times, or does it mean that 77 sins can be forgiven one time each? But the forgiveness that Jesus mentions applies to man. Do we know how many times God will forgive each of us for one sin? There seems to be no specific number in the Bible as there is in Matthew 18:22 that we can even start with. What may be more conceivable is that we each have a ledger that God examines before deciding whether we are worthy of Heaven, in which, taking everything into account, hopefully our credits exceed out debits, in matters of our faith in Hm.

The law of God for all mankind can be found all through Genesis before Moses existed. As a Gentile, I've always been under this law of God, Rom. 2:14,15, and under the New Covenant I remain under God's law, termed the "law of Christ", which would include at least the basics of nine of the ten commandments and maybe all ten. -

"To those outside the law I became as one outside the law—not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ—that I might win those outside the law." (1Cor 9:21 RSV)

I, as a Gentile, of the nations so to speak, have never been under the Old Covenant, the Law of Moses, and the New Testament makes clear I am not to be placed under the Old Covenant, the Law of Moses. Jesus, speaking to the Judeans prior to the cross stated:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matt 5:17 KJV)
as contrasted with -
"Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;" (Eph 2:15 KJV)

Or as rendered in a modern English American translation:

“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them." (Matt 5:17 RSV)
as contrasted with -
"...by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace," (Eph 2:15 RSV)

We know as justified believers, Scripture never contradicts itself, so how do we understand the preceding? A full quote from Matthew 5 should clear things up, Jesus speaking to Judeans prior to the cross:

“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 5:17-19 RSV)

The Old Covenant was in effect until fulfilled and accomplished. When did Jesus complete this mission of fulfilling and accomplishing all? I think he stated it clearly:

"When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." (John 19:30 KJV)

This view is one reason I embrace the First London Confession of Faith of 1644/1646 as best expressing my understanding of Scripture. Men of God out of the past that I dearly love have a different view, dividing the law of Moses into 3 parts: Moral, Civil and Ceremonial. I can't follow that because to my knowledge it is not so stated in Scripture. Even if it were, what right would I have to decide just one or two parts of the Law of Moses were abolished?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave L
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,599
Hudson
✟281,635.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
To what extent are we bound by the law? Is there a contradiction in the passages of the New Testament? Lord Jesus in Matthew 5:17-19 says “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Jesus says he comes not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. We might infer that since Jesus does not intend to abolish the Law, the Law still exists. It may not be needed by Jesus since he has fulfilled the Law, so who does the Law exist for? Verse 19 makes it plain that exists for the rest of us...Those of us who disregard the least of the “commandments,” will be called least into the Kingdom of Heaven.[/quote]

Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law in contrast with saying that he came not to abolish it, so fulfilling the law should not be interpreted as meaning essentially the same thing. "To fulfill the law" means "to cause God's will as made known in His law to be obeyed as it should be” (NAS Greek Lexicon pleroo 2c3). After Jesus said he came to fulfill the law in Matthew 5, he proceeded to fulfill it six times throughout the rest of the chapter by teaching how to correctly obey it or by completing our understanding of it. In Galatians 5:14, loving our neighbor fulfills the entire law, so it refers to something that countless people have done, not to something unique that only Jesus did. In Galatians 6:2, bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ, so you should interpret that in the same way as you interpret fulfilling the Law of Moses, not as causing it to not be needed.

So why does Romans 7:6 say that we are “released from the Law”? Where is the consistency between that, and Matthew 5:17-19? Is Matthew 5:19 a key? There, Jesus seems to infer that when all is accomplished, there will no longer be any need for the Law. But a person’s relationship with God is an individual matter. Because of that, the Law cannot be swept away on a wholesale basis, but according to individual by individual.

Where does the “fulfillment” come in for each of us? When might each of us be “released from the Law”? Seems that both are achieved when we establish our faith in God. It is at that point that each of us is released from “the elementary Doctrine f Christ,” as mentioned in Hebrews 6:1. At that point, we go on from just drinking the milk of God to eating real food.

In Romans 7:22-23, Paul said that he delighted in obeying God's law, but contrasted that with the law of sin, which held him captive. If Romans 7:5-6 were referring to God's law, then that would mean that Paul delighted in stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death and in being held captive, which is absurd, but rather it is the law of sin that he described as holding him captive. Jesus said that not the least part would disappear from the law until heaven and earth pass away and all is accomplished, neither of which has happened yet, both of which are either referring to end times or are ways of saying that it is never going to happen. All of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160) and instructions for how to testify about God's nature can't be abolished without first abolishing God.

But what does faith in God entail? If we just say “Lord, Lord” without doing God’s Will, is our faith in God established? Jesus in Matthew 7:21 infers that it doesn’t, at least to the extent that we do not do God’s Will.

Is doing God’s Will not a matter of works? Our works mean nothing if it is not out of our faith in God. It seems that our works may be a function of our seeing the Light of God, but our faith in God isn’t established until those works are performed. Some have said that whatever works we engage in are God’s works. But regardless of who those works belong to, it is up to the individual who is endowed with the ability to perform those works, to do so in order to establish their faith in God. Each of us have been wonderfully made according to Psalms 139:14, and we have the capacity to learn, that we may be equipped to perform good works as inferred in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

God has straightforwardly made His will known through His law (Psalms 40:8), though Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matter of the law, so obedience to God's will is a matter of faith. For instance, every example of faith listed in Hebrews 11 is also example of obedience to God's will. Only those who have faith in God to guide us will obey His law and will be justified by the same faith, which is why Paul said in Romans 2:13 that only doers of the law will be justified, but denied in Romans 4:4-5 that we can earn our justification by being a doer of the law.

Romans 7 seems to infer that once our faith in God is established, through whatever means consistent with the Bible, the Law of God that the Hebrews were under is no longer necessary. But Romans 7 also serves as a reminder that the Law for each of us, to the extent that our faith may waiver due to temptation of sin, still exists to remind us that the Law has identified the sins which we may fall prey to. What then? We can ask for forgiveness. But would God grant us forgiveness if we just say, “God forgive me,” and then repeat the sin? Jesus tells us that we may forgive a person “seventy-seven times,” according to Matthew 18:22. Does that mean the same sin can be forgiven 77 times, or does it mean that 77 sins can be forgiven one time each? But the forgiveness that Jesus mentions applies to man. Do we know how many times God will forgive each of us for one sin? There seems to be no specific number in the Bible as there is in Matthew 18:22 that we can even start with. What may be more conceivable is that we each have a ledger that God examines before deciding whether we are worthy of Heaven, in which, taking everything into account, hopefully our credits exceed out debits, in matters of our faith in Hm.

In Romans 7:25, Paul spoke about the law of God, which he served with his mind, and contrasted it with the law of sin, which he served with his flesh. Paul should not be interpreted as speaking against the law of God that he delighted in obeying. If God's law identifies what sin is and we are required to refrain from sin, then we are still obligated to obey God's law. If our obedience to God's law were for God's good, then it would have been about earning enough credits to exceed our debits, however, God's law was given for our own good (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13), so our obedience is instead about putting our faith in God to rightly guide us.

The 77 was not giving an exact number that caps how many times that we have been forgiven, but rather it was in reference to what Lamech said in Genesis 4:23-24, where his revenge was 77 times. In other words, our willingness to forgive needs to counter our capacity for revenge.
 
Upvote 0

A.ModerateOne

Active Member
Supporter
Sep 24, 2018
191
129
79
Florida
✟33,541.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Jesus says he comes not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. We might infer that since Jesus does not intend to abolish the Law, the Law still exists. It may not be needed by Jesus since he has fulfilled the Law, so who does the Law exist for? Verse 19 makes it plain that exists for the rest of us...Those of us who disregard the least of the “commandments,” will be called least into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law in contrast with saying that he came not to abolish it, so fulfilling the law should not be interpreted as meaning essentially the same thing. "To fulfill the law" means "to cause God's will as made known in His law to be obeyed as it should be” (NAS Greek Lexicon pleroo 2c3). After Jesus said he came to fulfill the law in Matthew 5, he proceeded to fulfill it six times throughout the rest of the chapter by teaching how to correctly obey it or by completing our understanding of it. In Galatians 5:14, loving our neighbor fulfills the entire law, so it refers to something that countless people have done, not to something unique that only Jesus did. In Galatians 6:2, bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ, so you should interpret that in the same way as you interpret fulfilling the Law of Moses, not as causing it to not be needed.



In Romans 7:22-23, Paul said that he delighted in obeying God's law, but contrasted that with the law of sin, which held him captive. If Romans 7:5-6 were referring to God's law, then that would mean that Paul delighted in stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death and in being held captive, which is absurd, but rather it is the law of sin that he described as holding him captive. Jesus said that not the least part would disappear from the law until heaven and earth pass away and all is accomplished, neither of which has happened yet, both of which are either referring to end times or are ways of saying that it is never going to happen. All of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160) and instructions for how to testify about God's nature can't be abolished without first abolishing God.



God has straightforwardly made His will known through His law (Psalms 40:8), though Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matter of the law, so obedience to God's will is a matter of faith. For instance, every example of faith listed in Hebrews 11 is also example of obedience to God's will. Only those who have faith in God to guide us will obey His law and will be justified by the same faith, which is why Paul said in Romans 2:13 that only doers of the law will be justified, but denied in Romans 4:4-5 that we can earn our justification by being a doer of the law.



In Romans 7:25, Paul spoke about the law of God, which he served with his mind, and contrasted it with the law of sin, which he served with his flesh. Paul should not be interpreted as speaking against the law of God that he delighted in obeying. If God's law identifies what sin is and we are required to refrain from sin, then we are still obligated to obey God's law. If our obedience to God's law were for God's good, then it would have been about earning enough credits to exceed our debits, however, God's law was given for our own good (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13), so our obedience is instead about putting our faith in God to rightly guide us.

The 77 was not giving an exact number that caps how many times that we have been forgiven, but rather it was in reference to what Lamech said in Genesis 4:23-24, where his revenge was 77 times. In other words, our willingness to forgive needs to counter our capacity for revenge.[/QUOTE]

Where there are conflicting or contradictory statements in Scripture we can't just push one and ignore the other. One side or the other is being misunderstood. I find the direct and explicit statements of Scripture satisfy both sides of the superficial conflict and making them blend into a wonderful whole.

God's law for all mankind in all dispensations has existed from creation before Moses lived:

"...because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” (Gen 26:5 RSV)

The Old Covenant, the law of Moses did not appear until 430 years later:

"Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many; but, referring to one, “And to your offspring,” which is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void." (Gal 3:16-17 RSV)

The Old Covenant, the law of Moses was given to Israel alone, NOT the nations, the Gentiles:

"And what great nation is there, that has statutes and ordinances so righteous as all this law which I set before you this day?" (Deut 4:8 RSV) * The Old Covenant, the law of Moses had a start point
also
"These are the commandments which the LORD commanded Moses for the people of Israel on Mount Sinai." (Lev 27:34 RSV)

God's law for all mankind in all dispensations has existed since creation:

"When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them" (Rom 2:14-15 RSV)

The Old Covenant or Law of Moses had an end day as well as a start day. It ended at the cross when Jesus fulfilled it, completed it, accomplished for and in the place of his people, the believers; thus providing their payment for sin and also provide righteousness by his active and passive obedience:

"...having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross." (Col 2:14 RSV)

"For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end." (Eph 2:14-16 RSV)

"Now if the dispensation of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such splendor that the Israelites could not look at Moses’ face because of its brightness, fading as this was, will not the dispensation of the Spirit be attended with greater splendor? For if there was splendor in the dispensation of condemnation, the dispensation of righteousness must far exceed it in splendor. Indeed, in this case, what once had splendor has come to have no splendor at all, because of the splendor that surpasses it. For if what faded away came with splendor, what is permanent must have much more splendor." (2Cor 3:7-11 RSV)

Compare Hebrews 8:13 with Exodus 34:28... the Ten Commandments as given by Moses abolished. We continue under the law of God, the law of Christ, 1 Cor. 9:21

The early Christians were Judeans, Israelites, and to them the Old Covenant was the focus and Paul of course often speaks from that perspective. I try to understand difficult passages by looking to see if the definite article precedes the word "law" in the Greek.
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,599
Hudson
✟281,635.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Where there are conflicting or contradictory statements in Scripture we can't just push one and ignore the other. One side or the other is being misunderstood. I find the direct and explicit statements of Scripture satisfy both sides of the superficial conflict and making them blend into a wonderful whole.

Are you implying that I am ignoring statements in Scripture? If so, then which ones?

God's law for all mankind in all dispensations has existed from creation before Moses lived:

"...because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” (Gen 26:5 RSV)

The Old Covenant, the law of Moses did not appear until 430 years later:

"Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many; but, referring to one, “And to your offspring,” which is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void." (Gal 3:16-17 RSV)

The Old Covenant, the law of Moses was given to Israel alone, NOT the nations, the Gentiles:

"And what great nation is there, that has statutes and ordinances so righteous as all this law which I set before you this day?" (Deut 4:8 RSV) * The Old Covenant, the law of Moses had a start point
also
"These are the commandments which the LORD commanded Moses for the people of Israel on Mount Sinai." (Lev 27:34 RSV)

The way to testify about God's nature is straightforwardly based on God's nature, not on any particular covenant, dispensation, group of people, or period of time, and God's nature is eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to testify about His nature are eternally valid. For example, if the way to testify about God's righteousness were to change when the Mosaic Covenant was made or became obsolete, then God's righteousness would not be eternal, but it is eternal. Likewise, sin was in the world before the Mosaic Law was given (Romans 5:13), so there were no actions that became righteous or sinful when it was given, but rather it revealed what has eternally been the way to do that. So the fact that God's nature is eternal completely undermines dispensationalism.

The Bible often uses the same terms to describe the nature of God as it does to describe the nature of the Mosaic Law, which is because it is God's instructions for how to testify about His nature, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), or with justice, mercy, and faithfulness being weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23). God's ways are the ways in which He expresses His nature, and there are many verses that describe the Mosaic Law as being instructions for how to walk in God's ways, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, Psalms 103:7, and many others, so the reason why God gave the Mosaic Law was not in order to teach the nations about who the Israelites are, but in order to equip the Israelites to be a light and a blessing to the nations through testifying about who God is. In Deuteronomy 4:5-8, the intended reaction from the nations seeking Israel's obedience to the Mosaic Law was to marvel at how great and wise God is, so again, they were testifying about who God is, which means that the Mosaic Law was essentially given to the Israelites as a tool to evangelize Gentiles.

While Genesis 26:5, does not go into details about the exact content of those laws, any two sets of instructions for how to testify about God's eternal nature are going to be the same in type and vary only in the degree of the thoroughness of examples. All of God's laws teach us how to testify about His eternal nature regardless of when they were given, though there are many examples of laws being given throughout Genesis prior to Sinai. Gentiles should live in a way that testifies about God's eternal nature and not in a way that bears false witness against His nature, so Gentiles should live in obedience to God's eternal laws regardless of when they were given.

For example, in 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, such as refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45), so following those instructions is testifying about God's eternal holiness. In 1 Peter 2:9-10, Gentiles are included as part of God's chosen people, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and a treasure of God's own possession, which are terms used to describe Israel (Deuteronomy 7:6), so Gentiles also have the delight of getting to obey the laws that God gave for how to fulfill those roles. It is contradictory for a Gentile to want to become part of a holy nation while wanting nothing to do with following God's laws for how to live as part of a holy nation.

God's law for all mankind in all dispensations has existed since creation:

"When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them" (Rom 2:14-15 RSV)

In Romans 2:13-15, only doers of the Mosaic Law will be justified and believing Gentiles will by nature live in obedience to it. This says nothing about the distinction that you are trying to make.

The Old Covenant or Law of Moses had an end day as well as a start day. It ended at the cross when Jesus fulfilled it, completed it, accomplished for and in the place of his people, the believers; thus providing their payment for sin and also provide righteousness by his active and passive obedience:

"...having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross." (Col 2:14 RSV)

Instructions for how to testify about God's nature can't be ended without first ending God. There is a major difference between these two statements:

1.) You shall not commit murder.

2.) This person has been found guilty of murder.

The first is an example of a law that is for our own good, while the second is an example of a decree that was against someone who has committed murder that was nailed to their cross in order to announce why they were being executed. Crosses were never used for the purpose of disposing of laws, so Colossians 2:14 is not speaking about any laws being nailed to the cross, but about the charges that were against them being nailed to the cross (Matthew 27:37). This serves as a perfect analogy for the list of our violations of God's law being nailed to Christ's cross and with him dying in our place to pay the penalty for our sins, but has nothing to do with ending any of God's laws, especially because they are all eternal (Psalms 119:160).

"For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end." (Eph 2:14-16 RSV)

In Ephesians 2:14-16, it is referring to decrees that are not eternal, so it couldn't be referring to any of God's laws. God did not make any mistakes when He gave the law, so He had no need to send Christ to break down his own laws. Furthermore, 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. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to end any laws, but in order to redeem us from all lawlessness, so interpreting either Colossians 2:14 or Ephesians 2:14-16 as referring to any of God's laws undermines what Jesus went to the cross to accomplish. In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus specifically said that he came not to abolish the law and warned those who would relax the least part of the law or teach others to do the same, so saying that Jesus abolished any laws is calling him a liar and disregarding his warning.

"Now if the dispensation of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such splendor that the Israelites could not look at Moses’ face because of its brightness, fading as this was, will not the dispensation of the Spirit be attended with greater splendor? For if there was splendor in the dispensation of condemnation, the dispensation of righteousness must far exceed it in splendor. Indeed, in this case, what once had splendor has come to have no splendor at all, because of the splendor that surpasses it. For if what faded away came with splendor, what is permanent must have much more splendor." (2Cor 3:7-11 RSV)

Compare Hebrews 8:13 with Exodus 34:28... the Ten Commandments as given by Moses abolished. We continue under the law of God, the law of Christ, 1 Cor. 9:21

God is not in disagreement with Himself about which laws we should follow, so the Law of Christ is the same as the Law of the Spirit and the Law of the Father, which was given to Moses. In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God commanded him without departing from it, so it is all the Law of God. Likewise, the Law of Moses is referred to as the Law of God in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23. Christ set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, he did not hypocritically preach something other than what he practiced, and he did not establish the New Covenant in order to undermine anything that he spent his ministry teaching by word or by example, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the same law (Hebrews 8:10), so while the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete, God's eternal nature and eternal laws for how to testify about His nature did not become obsolete along with it. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to think that the Law of Christ was something other than what Christ taught by word and by example. In 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul said in a parallel statement that he was not outside the law of God, but under the Law of Christ, so he was equating the Mosaic Law with the Law of Christ.

The early Christians were Judeans, Israelites, and to them the Old Covenant was the focus and Paul of course often speaks from that perspective. I try to understand difficult passages by looking to see if the definite article precedes the word "law" in the Greek.

Paul spoke about multiple different categories of law, such as the law of God, works of the law, and the law of sin. For example, in Romans 3:27, he contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, and in Romans 7:25, he contrasted the law of God with the law of sin. The phrase "works of the law" does not have a definitive article in the Greek, so it is literally translated as "works of law", which means that it does not refer to a definitive set of laws, such as the Law of Moses, so looking at the definitive article in the Greek will correctly distinguish the two, but won't correctly distinguish between the Law of Moses and the law of sin.
 
Upvote 0

A.ModerateOne

Active Member
Supporter
Sep 24, 2018
191
129
79
Florida
✟33,541.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Are you implying that I am ignoring statements in Scripture? If so, then which ones?



The way to testify about God's nature is straightforwardly based on God's nature, not on any particular covenant, dispensation, group of people, or period of time, and God's nature is eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to testify about His nature are eternally valid. For example, if the way to testify about God's righteousness were to change when the Mosaic Covenant was made or became obsolete, then God's righteousness would not be eternal, but it is eternal. Likewise, sin was in the world before the Mosaic Law was given (Romans 5:13), so there were no actions that became righteous or sinful when it was given, but rather it revealed what has eternally been the way to do that. So the fact that God's nature is eternal completely undermines dispensationalism.

The Bible often uses the same terms to describe the nature of God as it does to describe the nature of the Mosaic Law, which is because it is God's instructions for how to testify about His nature, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), or with justice, mercy, and faithfulness being weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23). God's ways are the ways in which He expresses His nature, and there are many verses that describe the Mosaic Law as being instructions for how to walk in God's ways, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, Psalms 103:7, and many others, so the reason why God gave the Mosaic Law was not in order to teach the nations about who the Israelites are, but in order to equip the Israelites to be a light and a blessing to the nations through testifying about who God is. In Deuteronomy 4:5-8, the intended reaction from the nations seeking Israel's obedience to the Mosaic Law was to marvel at how great and wise God is, so again, they were testifying about who God is, which means that the Mosaic Law was essentially given to the Israelites as a tool to evangelize Gentiles.

While Genesis 26:5, does not go into details about the exact content of those laws, any two sets of instructions for how to testify about God's eternal nature are going to be the same in type and vary only in the degree of the thoroughness of examples. All of God's laws teach us how to testify about His eternal nature regardless of when they were given, though there are many examples of laws being given throughout Genesis prior to Sinai. Gentiles should live in a way that testifies about God's eternal nature and not in a way that bears false witness against His nature, so Gentiles should live in obedience to God's eternal laws regardless of when they were given.

For example, in 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, such as refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45), so following those instructions is testifying about God's eternal holiness. In 1 Peter 2:9-10, Gentiles are included as part of God's chosen people, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and a treasure of God's own possession, which are terms used to describe Israel (Deuteronomy 7:6), so Gentiles also have the delight of getting to obey the laws that God gave for how to fulfill those roles. It is contradictory for a Gentile to want to become part of a holy nation while wanting nothing to do with following God's laws for how to live as part of a holy nation.



In Romans 2:13-15, only doers of the Mosaic Law will be justified and believing Gentiles will by nature live in obedience to it. This says nothing about the distinction that you are trying to make.



Instructions for how to testify about God's nature can't be ended without first ending God. There is a major difference between these two statements:

1.) You shall not commit murder.

2.) This person has been found guilty of murder.

The first is an example of a law that is for our own good, while the second is an example of a decree that was against someone who has committed murder that was nailed to their cross in order to announce why they were being executed. Crosses were never used for the purpose of disposing of laws, so Colossians 2:14 is not speaking about any laws being nailed to the cross, but about the charges that were against them being nailed to the cross (Matthew 27:37). This serves as a perfect analogy for the list of our violations of God's law being nailed to Christ's cross and with him dying in our place to pay the penalty for our sins, but has nothing to do with ending any of God's laws, especially because they are all eternal (Psalms 119:160).



In Ephesians 2:14-16, it is referring to decrees that are not eternal, so it couldn't be referring to any of God's laws. God did not make any mistakes when He gave the law, so He had no need to send Christ to break down his own laws. Furthermore, 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. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to end any laws, but in order to redeem us from all lawlessness, so interpreting either Colossians 2:14 or Ephesians 2:14-16 as referring to any of God's laws undermines what Jesus went to the cross to accomplish. In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus specifically said that he came not to abolish the law and warned those who would relax the least part of the law or teach others to do the same, so saying that Jesus abolished any laws is calling him a liar and disregarding his warning.



God is not in disagreement with Himself about which laws we should follow, so the Law of Christ is the same as the Law of the Spirit and the Law of the Father, which was given to Moses. In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God commanded him without departing from it, so it is all the Law of God. Likewise, the Law of Moses is referred to as the Law of God in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23. Christ set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, he did not hypocritically preach something other than what he practiced, and he did not establish the New Covenant in order to undermine anything that he spent his ministry teaching by word or by example, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the same law (Hebrews 8:10), so while the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete, God's eternal nature and eternal laws for how to testify about His nature did not become obsolete along with it. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to think that the Law of Christ was something other than what Christ taught by word and by example. In 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul said in a parallel statement that he was not outside the law of God, but under the Law of Christ, so he was equating the Mosaic Law with the Law of Christ.



Paul spoke about multiple different categories of law, such as the law of God, works of the law, and the law of sin. For example, in Romans 3:27, he contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, and in Romans 7:25, he contrasted the law of God with the law of sin. The phrase "works of the law" does not have a definitive article in the Greek, so it is literally translated as "works of law", which means that it does not refer to a definitive set of laws, such as the Law of Moses, so looking at the definitive article in the Greek will correctly distinguish the two, but won't correctly distinguish between the Law of Moses and the law of sin.

It produces utter confusion to conflate the attributes of God, his immutable nature; with the commands he gives to men in any age or dispensation, which is God's law to that particular person or group of persons, or to national Israel under the Old Covenant.

When I speak "the law of God" I am speaking of the law that applies to all men in all times and ages, from creation forward. There are other instances of what would be called "the law of God" to those who are specifically placed under that law and command: Adam was commanded not to eat of the tree and that was "the law of God" to Adam, but not to me; Noah was commanded to build an ark and that was "the law of God" to Noah, not to me. God commanded circumcision to Abraham, but not to me. God gave "the law of God" to Israel alone known as the law of Moses, or the Old Covenant. The Scriptures explicitly, clearly state that the Old Covenant, the law of Moses was given to Israel, not the other nations, but only to Israel: Deut. 4:8, Lev. 26:46; 27:34. It was given on a specific day, Deut. 4:8 and it was NOT found in the book of Genesis prior to Moses because it was given that day. The law that pertained to all men in all times is found in the book of Genesis before Moses existed, it is found within the Old Covenant and it remains in the New Covenant, but it is now the law of Christ, 1 Cor. 9:21 not the law of Moses; it is the commands from Jesus Christ in this day under the New Covenant.

Moses prophesied that a prophet was coming in the future and it was then to Him that they were to obey and heed, Deut. 18:15-19; and we know from Acts 3:22,23 that Moses spoke of Jesus the Christ. The Gentiles, of which I am one, were never given the Old Covenant, the law of Moses, Rom. 2:14,15 and Acts 15 makes it perfectly clear Gentile believers were NOT to be placed under the law of Moses, vss 5-11. Jesus gave instructions to the Apostles: "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Matt 28:20 RSV) He does not tell the Apostles to teach them to observe the law of Moses, the Old Covenant. Now, are there commands given us in the New Covenant that were given exactly as in the Old Covenant? Yes, but they are our commands because they are in the New Covenant, not because they are in the Old Covenant. For example, Leviticus 19:18b "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" is given to us numerous times in the New Covenant but it is for us now not because we read it in the Old Covenant given to Israel.

I used the term "dispensations" and I meant it in the manner Paul used it, speaking of the Old Covenant which was a dispensation of death, 2 Cor.3:7 RSV; and the New Covenant, a dispensation of righteousness, 2 Cor. 3:9 RSV. I personally think of Scripture in 3 dispensations, thinking of Genesis as pre-law of Moses or Old Covenant. I also view the gospels as preparatory as they exist mainly under the Old Covenant, pre-crucifixion before the New Covenant in the blood of Jesus. I think of Acts as transition as the New Covenant is put into belief and practice and the Old Covenant is weeded out as obligatory.

Maybe two other translations can make it crystal clear, Gentiles were not under the Law of Moses, no law -

"When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves." (Rom 2:14 NRSV) * Gentiles are those who do not possess the law.

"For when Gentiles who have no Law obey by natural instinct the commands of the Law, they, without having a Law, are a Law to themselves" (Rom 2:14 Weymouth)

I've read the SDA argument that Col. 2:14 only nailed the charges to the cross, not the law or legal demands themselves, quite creative but not what the verse says. This is a place where we must look at the literal Greek to clarify that evasion of the truth -

The Greek-English Interlinear NRSV NT, NA27 Col. 2:14 "Having wiped out the handwriting in the ordinances against us, which was contrary to us, and he has taken it out of the midst(way) [by] having nailed it to the cross." Tyndale Publishing, translators Robert K. Brown and Philip W. Comfort

The NIV Interlinear Greek-English NT Col. 2:14 "wiping out the handwriting against us - in ordinances which was contrary to us, and has taken it out of the midst(way), nailing it to the cross;" Zondervan translation by Reverend Alfred Marshall

On Eph. 2:14,15 your remark about "referring to decrees that are not eternal" seems nonsensical to me. The passage states "by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances", as clearly and explicitly as could be stated. I do not see anywhere in Scripture where the commands of God given to men are called decrees or a decree. I see where in 1 Cor. 2:7 the RSV renders "decreed", the RV "foreordained" and Weymouth "pre-destined", synonyms, so how you speak of God having decrees that are not eternal escapes me. In the sense of crime and punishment, punishment for sin could be said to be decreed "The soul that sins shall die." Eze. 18:20 That seems rather permanent as well.

My moral standards, the law that defines sin to me is the "law of Christ", the New Covenant code of conduct or ethics. An example of difference between the Old and New Covenants is like this:

Old Covenant -
"You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." (Exod 20:17 NRSV)

Under the Old Covenant you could own slaves as well as a wife. The New Covenant is the basic, "You shall not covet" as Paul listed it in Rom. 13:9 It is equated with idolatry in Col. 3:5.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ReuleauxMan
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

newton3005

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2019
646
166
60
newburgh
✟113,995.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Scriptures explicitly, clearly state that the Old Covenant, the law of Moses was given to Israel, not the other nations, but only to Israel:

So why is ALL of the Old Testament, including Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy included in the Christian Bible if the Laws on those books don't apply to Christians? Why have certain Christian government officials, in positions of leadership, mandated that the Ten Commandments be displayed on government grounds?

Christians here have asserted that the Laws in the Old Testament need not be followed since they are liberated through Christ from the Old Law. so again, why is the Old Testament, including the Books after Genesis, included in the Christian Bible?
 
Upvote 0

A.ModerateOne

Active Member
Supporter
Sep 24, 2018
191
129
79
Florida
✟33,541.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
So why is ALL of the Old Testament, including Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy included in the Christian Bible if the Laws on those books don't apply to Christians? Why have certain Christian government officials, in positions of leadership, mandated that the Ten Commandments be displayed on government grounds?

Christians here have asserted that the Laws in the Old Testament need not be followed since they are liberated through Christ from the Old Law. so again, why is the Old Testament, including the Books after Genesis, included in the Christian Bible?

"Now these things occurred as examples for us, so that we might not desire evil as they did. Do not become idolaters as some of them did; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and they rose up to play.” We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day." (1Cor 10:6-8 NRSV)
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,599
Hudson
✟281,635.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
It produces utter confusion to conflate the attributes of God, his immutable nature; with the commands he gives to men in any age or dispensation, which is God's law to that particular person or group of persons, or to national Israel under the Old Covenant.

If God's laws were not arbitrarily given, and I see no reason to think that they were, then God had good reasons for why He chose to give the laws that He did that stem from His infinite wisdom, and those reasons teach us something about God's nature. For example, God's righteous laws teach us about His righteousness. If a particular action were not for or against God's immutable nature, then I see no motivation for why God would have cared enough to give a command for or against it. If God's commands teach us how to testify about who God is and we should live in a way that testifies about who He is, then we should follow them regardless of whom they were given to. If God had just announced instructions for how to testify about His nature without giving them to any particular group of people and without making any covenants, then we would still be obligated to follow those instructions, so the fact that we aren't under the Mosaic Covenant is irrelevant.

When I speak "the law of God" I am speaking of the law that applies to all men in all times and ages, from creation forward. There are other instances of what would be called "the law of God" to those who are specifically placed under that law and command: Adam was commanded not to eat of the tree and that was "the law of God" to Adam, but not to me; Noah was commanded to build an ark and that was "the law of God" to Noah, not to me. God commanded circumcision to Abraham, but not to me. God gave "the law of God" to Israel alone known as the law of Moses, or the Old Covenant. The Scriptures explicitly, clearly state that the Old Covenant, the law of Moses was given to Israel, not the other nations, but only to Israel: Deut. 4:8, Lev. 26:46; 27:34. It was given on a specific day, Deut. 4:8 and it was NOT found in the book of Genesis prior to Moses because it was given that day. The law that pertained to all men in all times is found in the book of Genesis before Moses existed, it is found within the Old Covenant and it remains in the New Covenant, but it is now the law of Christ, 1 Cor. 9:21 not the law of Moses; it is the commands from Jesus Christ in this day under the New Covenant.

God is not a respecter of persons, so the actions that God wants one person to take in a particular situation can be taken as precedent for how another person should act in an identical situation. If a third person had been in the Garden of Eden, then it shouldn't be a mystery whether or not God would want them to eat of the tree. If righteous person were in a situation where God was going to flood the earth because of their wickedness, then they should build a boat.

Yes, the Mosaic Law was given only to Israel, but it was given to Israel in order to equip them to be a light and a blessing to the nations by teaching the nations how to follow it (Deuteronomy 4:5-8, Isaiah 2:2-3, 49:6). A particular action can be against God's nature from the beginning regardless of when God chose to give a law against it. In Genesis 26:5, Abraham heard God's voice and kept His charge, His commandments, His statutes, and His laws, and while it doesn't go into details about the exact content of these instructions compared to the Mosaic Law, any two sets of instructions for how to testify about God's nature are going to instruct for or against the same types of actions and vary only in the decree of thoroughness of examples for how to do what is righteous in particular situations.

Christ taught obedience to the Mosaic Law both by word and by example, so it wouldn't make sense to think that the Law of Christ was something other than what he taught, especially when 1 Corinthians 9:21 equates the Mosaic Law with the Law of Christ.

Moses prophesied that a prophet was coming in the future and it was then to Him that they were to obey and heed, Deut. 18:15-19; and we know from Acts 3:22,23 that Moses spoke of Jesus the Christ. The Gentiles, of which I am one, were never given the Old Covenant, the law of Moses, Rom. 2:14,15 and Acts 15 makes it perfectly clear Gentile believers were NOT to be placed under the law of Moses, vss 5-11. Jesus gave instructions to the Apostles: "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Matt 28:20 RSV) He does not tell the Apostles to teach them to observe the law of Moses, the Old Covenant. Now, are there commands given us in the New Covenant that were given exactly as in the Old Covenant? Yes, but they are our commands because they are in the New Covenant, not because they are in the Old Covenant. For example, Leviticus 19:18b "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" is given to us numerous times in the New Covenant but it is for us now not because we read it in the Old Covenant given to Israel.

The same Father who gave the law to Moses also send Jesus, who set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to it, so there is no disagreement. In John 5:46-47, Jesus said that if they believed Moses, then they would believe him because he wrote of him, but if they do not believe is writings, how will they believe his words? So we can't believe in the words of Jesus without also believing in the writings of Moses. Jesus spent his ministry teaching obedience to the Mosaic Law both by word and by example, so that is the content of all that he commanded his disciples to teach to the nations under the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:33), so Gentiles are free to look at what Jesus taught and to decide whether or not to become His follower, but Gentiles can't follow Jesus by refusing to follow what he taught. In Romans 2:13-15, only doers of the Mosaic Law will be justified and believing Gentiles will by nature be doers of the Mosaic Law even though it was not given to Gentiles.

In Acts 15:1, there were some men from Judea who were teaching that Gentiles had to become circumcised in order to become saved, while in Acts 15:5, a different group of believers from the Pharisees countered their position by that to circumcise Gentiles and order them to obey the Law of Moses, which was a matter of obedience, not as a matter of what Gentiles need to do in order to become saved. These were the two positions being debated in Acts 15 and no one was arguing for the position that Gentiles don't need to become circumcised or obey the Law of Moses.

I used the term "dispensations" and I meant it in the manner Paul used it, speaking of the Old Covenant which was a dispensation of death, 2 Cor.3:7 RSV; and the New Covenant, a dispensation of righteousness, 2 Cor. 3:9 RSV. I personally think of Scripture in 3 dispensations, thinking of Genesis as pre-law of Moses or Old Covenant. I also view the gospels as preparatory as they exist mainly under the Old Covenant, pre-crucifixion before the New Covenant in the blood of Jesus. I think of Acts as transition as the New Covenant is put into belief and practice and the Old Covenant is weeded out as obligatory.

People have created their own doctrines that have nothing to do with how Paul used the term, especially because Paul never said anything about how many dispensations there are.

In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, it says that the Mosaic Law is not too difficult to obey and that obedience to it brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! The fact that it is a ministry of death for those who refuse to obey the Mosaic Law is not a very good reason to refuse to obey and to refuse to come under a ministry of life.


I've read the SDA argument that Col. 2:14 only nailed the charges to the cross, not the law or legal demands themselves, quite creative but not what the verse says. This is a place where we must look at the literal Greek to clarify that evasion of the truth -

The Greek-English Interlinear NRSV NT, NA27 Col. 2:14 "Having wiped out the handwriting in the ordinances against us, which was contrary to us, and he has taken it out of the midst(way) [by] having nailed it to the cross." Tyndale Publishing, translators Robert K. Brown and Philip W. Comfort

The NIV Interlinear Greek-English NT Col. 2:14 "wiping out the handwriting against us - in ordinances which was contrary to us, and has taken it out of the midst(way), nailing it to the cross;" Zondervan translation by Reverend Alfred Marshall

On Eph. 2:14,15 your remark about "referring to decrees that are not eternal" seems nonsensical to me. The passage states "by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances", as clearly and explicitly as could be stated. I do not see anywhere in Scripture where the commands of God given to men are called decrees or a decree. I see where in 1 Cor. 2:7 the RSV renders "decreed", the RV "foreordained" and Weymouth "pre-destined", synonyms, so how you speak of God having decrees that are not eternal escapes me. In the sense of crime and punishment, punishment for sin could be said to be decreed "The soul that sins shall die." Eze. 18:20 That seems rather permanent as well.

I agree the Scripture does not refer to the commands of God as decrees, which is precisely the point. The Greek word "dogma" that is used in Colossians 2:14 and Ephesians 2:14-15 means "edict", "decree", or "ordinance" and is never used by Scripture to refer to the commands of God. In Luke 2:1, Acts 16:4, and Acts 17:7, "dogma" clearly refuses to decrees of men, so I was not speaking about God having decrees. Both of those passages are referring to something that been ended, but all of God's righteous laws are eternal and will never end, so neither could be referring to any of God's laws. I agree that a punishment is something that is decreed, which again is precisely the point that Colossians 2:14 is speaking about the punishment that was decreed against us being nailed to Christ's cross and with Christ dying in our place, but has nothing to do with ending any of God's laws.

My moral standards, the law that defines sin to me is the "law of Christ", the New Covenant code of conduct or ethics. An example of difference between the Old and New Covenants is like this:

Old Covenant -
"You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." (Exod 20:17 NRSV)

Under the Old Covenant you could own slaves as well as a wife. The New Covenant is the basic, "You shall not covet" as Paul listed it in Rom. 13:9 It is equated with idolatry in Col. 3:5.

Do you think that either Jesus or Paul were in disagreement with what the Father commanded in regard to ethics? To be consistent, do you think that Paul was saying that we can no longer own an ox or a donkey under the New Covenant? Exodus 20:7 was spoken by God, so do you disagree that man shall live by every word that comes out of the mouth of God?
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,599
Hudson
✟281,635.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
"Now these things occurred as examples for us, so that we might not desire evil as they did. Do not become idolaters as some of them did; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and they rose up to play.” We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day." (1Cor 10:6-8 NRSV)

Israel's refusal to obey the Mosaic Law should be used as an example of what we shouldn't do, not as an example for us to copy.
 
Upvote 0

A.ModerateOne

Active Member
Supporter
Sep 24, 2018
191
129
79
Florida
✟33,541.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
If God's laws were not arbitrarily given, and I see no reason to think that they were, then God had good reasons for why He chose to give the laws that He did that stem from His infinite wisdom, and those reasons teach us something about God's nature. For example, God's righteous laws teach us about His righteousness. If a particular action were not for or against God's immutable nature, then I see no motivation for why God would have cared enough to give a command for or against it. If God's commands teach us how to testify about who God is and we should live in a way that testifies about who He is, then we should follow them regardless of whom they were given to. If God had just announced instructions for how to testify about His nature without giving them to any particular group of people and without making any covenants, then we would still be obligated to follow those instructions, so the fact that we aren't under the Mosaic Covenant is irrelevant.



God is not a respecter of persons, so the actions that God wants one person to take in a particular situation can be taken as precedent for how another person should act in an identical situation. If a third person had been in the Garden of Eden, then it shouldn't be a mystery whether or not God would want them to eat of the tree. If righteous person were in a situation where God was going to flood the earth because of their wickedness, then they should build a boat.

Yes, the Mosaic Law was given only to Israel, but it was given to Israel in order to equip them to be a light and a blessing to the nations by teaching the nations how to follow it (Deuteronomy 4:5-8, Isaiah 2:2-3, 49:6). A particular action can be against God's nature from the beginning regardless of when God chose to give a law against it. In Genesis 26:5, Abraham heard God's voice and kept His charge, His commandments, His statutes, and His laws, and while it doesn't go into details about the exact content of these instructions compared to the Mosaic Law, any two sets of instructions for how to testify about God's nature are going to instruct for or against the same types of actions and vary only in the decree of thoroughness of examples for how to do what is righteous in particular situations.

Christ taught obedience to the Mosaic Law both by word and by example, so it wouldn't make sense to think that the Law of Christ was something other than what he taught, especially when 1 Corinthians 9:21 equates the Mosaic Law with the Law of Christ.



The same Father who gave the law to Moses also send Jesus, who set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to it, so there is no disagreement. In John 5:46-47, Jesus said that if they believed Moses, then they would believe him because he wrote of him, but if they do not believe is writings, how will they believe his words? So we can't believe in the words of Jesus without also believing in the writings of Moses. Jesus spent his ministry teaching obedience to the Mosaic Law both by word and by example, so that is the content of all that he commanded his disciples to teach to the nations under the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:33), so Gentiles are free to look at what Jesus taught and to decide whether or not to become His follower, but Gentiles can't follow Jesus by refusing to follow what he taught. In Romans 2:13-15, only doers of the Mosaic Law will be justified and believing Gentiles will by nature be doers of the Mosaic Law even though it was not given to Gentiles.

In Acts 15:1, there were some men from Judea who were teaching that Gentiles had to become circumcised in order to become saved, while in Acts 15:5, a different group of believers from the Pharisees countered their position by that to circumcise Gentiles and order them to obey the Law of Moses, which was a matter of obedience, not as a matter of what Gentiles need to do in order to become saved. These were the two positions being debated in Acts 15 and no one was arguing for the position that Gentiles don't need to become circumcised or obey the Law of Moses.



People have created their own doctrines that have nothing to do with how Paul used the term, especially because Paul never said anything about how many dispensations there are.

In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, it says that the Mosaic Law is not too difficult to obey and that obedience to it brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! The fact that it is a ministry of death for those who refuse to obey the Mosaic Law is not a very good reason to refuse to obey and to refuse to come under a ministry of life.




I agree the Scripture does not refer to the commands of God as decrees, which is precisely the point. The Greek word "dogma" that is used in Colossians 2:14 and Ephesians 2:14-15 means "edict", "decree", or "ordinance" and is never used by Scripture to refer to the commands of God. In Luke 2:1, Acts 16:4, and Acts 17:7, "dogma" clearly refuses to decrees of men, so I was not speaking about God having decrees. Both of those passages are referring to something that been ended, but all of God's righteous laws are eternal and will never end, so neither could be referring to any of God's laws. I agree that a punishment is something that is decreed, which again is precisely the point that Colossians 2:14 is speaking about the punishment that was decreed against us being nailed to Christ's cross and with Christ dying in our place, but has nothing to do with ending any of God's laws.



Do you think that either Jesus or Paul were in disagreement with what the Father commanded in regard to ethics? To be consistent, do you think that Paul was saying that we can no longer own an ox or a donkey under the New Covenant? Exodus 20:7 was spoken by God, so do you disagree that man shall live by every word that comes out of the mouth of God?

The Apostle Paul has warned the justified ones:

"I tell you this to make sure no one talks you into error by specious arguments." (Col 2:4 REB)
or
"I say this to prevent your being misled by any one's plausible sophistry." (Col 2:4 Weymouth)

When it takes so much verbiage trying to refute the plain and clear statements of Scripture, it is indeed sophistry, false arguments. The Scriptures are clear and explicit on this.

"For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace" (Eph 2:14-15 RSV)

"Now if the dispensation of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such splendor that the Israelites could not look at Moses’ face because of its brightness, fading as this was, will not the dispensation of the Spirit be attended with greater splendor? For if there was splendor in the dispensation of condemnation, the dispensation of righteousness must far exceed it in splendor. Indeed, in this case, what once had splendor has come to have no splendor at all, because of the splendor that surpasses it. For if what faded away came with splendor, what is permanent must have much more splendor." (2Cor 3:7-11 RSV)

"In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:13 RSV)

What's in that first covenant, or Old Covenant that was obsolete and ready to vanish away?

"...And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." (Exod 34:28b RSV)

"For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ." (John 1:17 NET2)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,599
Hudson
✟281,635.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
The Apostle Paul has warned the justified ones:

"I tell you this to make sure no one talks you into error by specious arguments." (Col 2:4 REB)
or
"I say this to prevent your being misled by any one's plausible sophistry." (Col 2:4 Weymouth)

When it takes so much verbiage trying to refute the plain and clear statements of Scripture, it is indeed sophistry, false arguments. The Scriptures are clear and explicit on this.

Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

Christ set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to God's law, so Paul would not have described those who were teaching the Colossians to follow Christ's example as taking people captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, and not according to Christ. He went into more details about what the elemental spirits of the world are later in the chapter:

Colossians 2:22-23 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

So the Colossians were not being judged by those who were teaching them to follow Christ, but rather they were being judged by pagans teaching human precepts and traditions, and Paul was encouraging them not to let anyone keep them from obeying God's law, so you are misapplying Colossians 2:4 by directing it at me. Sophistry is a slanderous accusation that you need to back up by showing where I have using fallacious arguments with the intent of deceiving you. It is not sophistry for me to make the best case that I can for why I disagree with your position.

"For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace" (Eph 2:14-15 RSV)

Paul spoke about multiple different categories of law, such as the Law of God, the law of sin, and works of the law, so if you assume that he was always speaking about the Law of God, then you are guaranteed to misunderstand him. For example, in Romans 3:27, he contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, and in Romans 7:25, he contrasted the Law of God with the law of sin. So instead of just quoting that verse again, you need to make the case for why we should interpret what you have underlined is referring the Law of God and counter the reasons why I have given for why it couldn't be referring to the Law of God. In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus specifically said that he came not to abolish the law and warn those who would relax the least part of the law, so interpreting what you have underlined as referring to the Law of God is calling Jesus a liar and disregarding his warning.

"Now if the dispensation of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such splendor that the Israelites could not look at Moses’ face because of its brightness, fading as this was, will not the dispensation of the Spirit be attended with greater splendor? For if there was splendor in the dispensation of condemnation, the dispensation of righteousness must far exceed it in splendor. Indeed, in this case, what once had splendor has come to have no splendor at all, because of the splendor that surpasses it. For if what faded away came with splendor, what is permanent must have much more splendor." (2Cor 3:7-11 RSV)

"In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:13 RSV)

What's in that first covenant, or Old Covenant that was obsolete and ready to vanish away?

"...And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." (Exod 34:28b RSV)

In Hebrews 8:10, the New Covenant still involves following God's law, so while the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete, God's eternal law did not become obsolete along with it. Instructions for how to testify about God's nature can't be ended without first ending God. If the way to testify about God's righteousness were to change when the New Covenant was made, the God's righteousness would not be eternal, but it is eternal.

"For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ." (John 1:17 NET2)

In John 1:16-17, it says grace upon grace, so it is speaking about one example of grace being added on top of another. Furthermore, verse 17 does not contain the word "but".
 
Upvote 0

A.ModerateOne

Active Member
Supporter
Sep 24, 2018
191
129
79
Florida
✟33,541.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
The Apostle Paul has warned the justified ones:

"I tell you this to make sure no one talks you into error by specious arguments." (Col 2:4 REB)
or
"I say this to prevent your being misled by any one's plausible sophistry." (Col 2:4 Weymouth)

When it takes so much verbiage trying to refute the plain and clear statements of Scripture, it is indeed sophistry, false arguments. The Scriptures are clear and explicit on this.

"For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace" (Eph 2:14-15 RSV)

"Now if the dispensation of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such splendor that the Israelites could not look at Moses’ face because of its brightness, fading as this was, will not the dispensation of the Spirit be attended with greater splendor? For if there was splendor in the dispensation of condemnation, the dispensation of righteousness must far exceed it in splendor. Indeed, in this case, what once had splendor has come to have no splendor at all, because of the splendor that surpasses it. For if what faded away came with splendor, what is permanent must have much more splendor." (2Cor 3:7-11 RSV)

"In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:13 RSV)

What's in that first covenant, or Old Covenant that was obsolete and ready to vanish away?

"...And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." (Exod 34:28b RSV)

"For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ." (John 1:17 NET2)

To clarify my view of "moral law", I see two understandings by people. Some say the Ten Commandments are the moral law; but I insist they contain the moral law. The moral law in substance existed from creation forward, God's law, that does not change. In the Law of Moses, the moral law is given in a particular way that was applied to Israel. So when I insist the entire Law of Moses, the Old Covenant, was abolished, including the Ten Commandments; I do NOT mean the substance of moral law that has existed since creation and still exists in Christ's law today. I am not antinomian nor a dispensationalist.

From Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, a 19th century German Lutheran Greek scholar:

"Ephesians 2:15. τὴν ἔχθραν] This, still included in dependence upon λύσας, is now the μεσότοιχον broken down by Christ: (namely) the enmity. It is, after the example of Theodoret (comp. τινές in Chrysostom), understood by the majority (including Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Clarius, Grotius, Calovius, Morus, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Meier, Holzhausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette) of the Mosaic law as the cause of the enmity between Jew and Gentile, in which case the moral law is by some included, by others excluded. But, in accordance with Ephesians 2:14, the reader is led to nothing else than the opposite of εἰρήνη, i.e. to the abstract enmity; and in the sequel, indeed, the abolition of the law is very definitely distinguished from the destruction of the enmity (as means from end). Hence the only mode of taking it, in harmony with the word itself and with the context, is: the enmity which existed between Jews and Gentiles, comp. Ephesians 2:16."
Ephesians 2 - Heinrich Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

From the Appendix to the First London Confession of Faith Revised Edition 1646

"IX. Though we that believe in Christ, be not under the law, but under grace, Rom.6:14; yet we know that we are not lawless, or left to live without a rule; "not without law to God, but under law to Christ," 1 Cor.9:21. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is a law, or commanding rule unto us; whereby, and in obedience whereunto, we are taught to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world, Titus 2:11,12; the directions of Christ in His evangelical word guiding us unto, and in this sober, righteous, and godly walking, 1 Tim.1:10,11."

"X. Though we be not now sent to the law as it was in the hand of Moses, to be commanded thereby, yet Christ in His Gospel teacheth and commandeth us to walk in the same way of righteousness and holiness that God by Moses did command the lsraelites to walk in, all the commandments of the Second Table being still delivered unto us by Christ, and all the commandments of the First Table also (as touching the life and spirit of them) in this epitome or brief sum, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, etc.," Matt.22:37,38,39,40; Rom.13:8,9,10."
An Appendix to a Confession of Faith, 1646 | The Reformed Reader
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
We know some things about Jesus' relationship with the Law:
  • He cited the OT as authoritative, but in many cases followed what he regarded as the intent and not the letter. Mat 5 is a good example, as he replaces the words of several commandments with intepretations that represent the intent. See particularly Mat 19:8
  • While he didn't normally preach specifically to Gentiles, he interacted with them from time to time. He never suggested that they needed to become Jews or obey Jewish laws.
Paul had to deal with how to handle Jewish converts to Christianity. Jesus never dealt with the specific issue, but I would suggest that saying they weren't bound by Jewish law is consistent with how he treated Gentiles.

Remember that Mat 5:17 is the prolog to a set of sayings where he effectively replaced the written words. Thus I would suggest that the Law which will never pass away might not be the written Law, but God's actual intended plan for us. In that case not abolishing it but fulfilling it means that the reinterpretations that follow are fulfilling God's original intention by qualifying the written law, and that rather than abolishing it, as one might first think overruling the written words was doing, it was fulfilling God's actual law.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
To what extent are we bound by the law? Is there a contradiction in the passages of the New Testament? Lord Jesus in Matthew 5:17-19 says “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Jesus says he comes not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. We might infer that since Jesus does not intend to abolish the Law, the Law still exists. It may not be needed by Jesus since he has fulfilled the Law, so who does the Law exist for? Verse 19 makes it plain that exists for the rest of us...Those of us who disregard the least of the “commandments,” will be called least into the Kingdom of Heaven.

So why does Romans 7:6 say that we are “released from the Law”? Where is the consistency between that, and Matthew 5:17-19? Is Matthew 5:19 a key? There, Jesus seems to infer that when all is accomplished, there will no longer be any need for the Law. But a person’s relationship with God is an individual matter. Because of that, the Law cannot be swept away on a wholesale basis, but according to individual by individual.

Where does the “fulfillment” come in for each of us? When might each of us be “released from the Law”? Seems that both are achieved when we establish our faith in God. It is at that point that each of us is released from “the elementary Doctrine f Christ,” as mentioned in Hebrews 6:1. At that point, we go on from just drinking the milk of God to eating real food.

But what does faith in God entail? If we just say “Lord, Lord” without doing God’s Will, is our faith in God established? Jesus in Matthew 7:21 infers that it doesn’t, at least to the extent that we do not do God’s Will.

Is doing God’s Will not a matter of works? Our works mean nothing if it is not out of our faith in God. It seems that our works may be a function of our seeing the Light of God, but our faith in God isn’t established until those works are performed. Some have said that whatever works we engage in are God’s works. But regardless of who those works belong to, it is up to the individual who is endowed with the ability to perform those works, to do so in order to establish their faith in God. Each of us have been wonderfully made according to Psalms 139:14, and we have the capacity to learn, that we may be equipped to perform good works as inferred in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Romans 7 seems to infer that once our faith in God is established, through whatever means consistent with the Bible, the Law of God that the Hebrews were under is no longer necessary. But Romans 7 also serves as a reminder that the Law for each of us, to the extent that our faith may waiver due to temptation of sin, still exists to remind us that the Law has identified the sins which we may fall prey to. What then? We can ask for forgiveness. But would God grant us forgiveness if we just say, “God forgive me,” and then repeat the sin? Jesus tells us that we may forgive a person “seventy-seven times,” according to Matthew 18:22. Does that mean the same sin can be forgiven 77 times, or does it mean that 77 sins can be forgiven one time each? But the forgiveness that Jesus mentions applies to man. Do we know how many times God will forgive each of us for one sin? There seems to be no specific number in the Bible as there is in Matthew 18:22 that we can even start with. What may be more conceivable is that we each have a ledger that God examines before deciding whether we are worthy of Heaven, in which, taking everything into account, hopefully our credits exceed out debits, in matters of our faith in Hm.

We are released from written law when we
Do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
That's it.
What Does the Bible Say About The Golden Rule?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Davy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 25, 2017
4,861
1,022
USA
✟267,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
To what extent are we bound by the law? Is there a contradiction in the passages of the New Testament? Lord Jesus in Matthew 5:17-19 says “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Jesus says he comes not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. We might infer that since Jesus does not intend to abolish the Law, the Law still exists. It may not be needed by Jesus since he has fulfilled the Law, so who does the Law exist for? Verse 19 makes it plain that exists for the rest of us...Those of us who disregard the least of the “commandments,” will be called least into the Kingdom of Heaven.

So why does Romans 7:6 say that we are “released from the Law”? Where is the consistency between that, and Matthew 5:17-19? Is Matthew 5:19 a key? There, Jesus seems to infer that when all is accomplished, there will no longer be any need for the Law. But a person’s relationship with God is an individual matter. Because of that, the Law cannot be swept away on a wholesale basis, but according to individual by individual.
....

1 Tim 1:8-11
8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

KJV


Does that above sound like Apostle Paul believed God's law was done away with under Christ? Obviously not, since it said that "According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust."

Per the Book of Hebrews some things did change per The New Covenant, so we shouldn't think in absolutes about God's laws, like it either still exists or it doesn't exist. In Col.2:14 we are shown Lord Jesus nailed the handwriting of ordinances in God's law to His cross; that doesn't mean all of God's law.

For those in Christ, we are to 'walk' by The Spirit, and by doing that we become dead to the law. That's what Apostle Paul was saying in Galatians 5, not that God's laws are dead.

As long as there are brethren that won't open up their Bible and study for theirselves to verify what they're being taught at the pulpit, then the hireling that creeps in will make them believe whatever junk necessary to steal their money.
 
Upvote 0