Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Here you admit freely the law was set aside.Hebrews 7 - A Superior Priesthood
v 17-19 ~ And the psalmist pointed this out when he prophesied, “You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.” Yes, the old requirement about the priesthood was set aside because it was weak and useless. For the law never made anything perfect. But now we have confidence in a better hope, through which we draw near to God.
Thanks for saying all this. I make my posts assuming people know way to many things as a point of reference. The sad reality is if not said is it doesn't exist for many. My sister says I'm way to fast and can't follow me. I detest having to explain every detail. Yours I will read.Continuing in Romans 7, now that he has said we died to the law, he has to give an explanation because many would feel this is attacking the law. The problem is not the law, but us. So he goes on to defend the law, and why God did this:
7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”
So he first notes that the law is not sin. In fact the law points out sin. This goes back to what he said in Chapter 3. From Romans 1:18 - 3:20 Paul is spelling out how the whole world is alike under sin. This culminates in the following:
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.
20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
The law cannot declare us righteous because we are all alike under sin. He then from 3:21-the end of chapter 5 spells out that righteousness is by faith, not from the law.
So the law points out sin, and points out what we should do. It is righteous. But it cannot make us righteous. That is because in our weakness of our sinful flesh we cannot keep it.
8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.
Here he says the law intended to bring life brought death--because we couldn't keep it. The law says we should do it. We don't do it, resulting in death. This is not the fault of the law. The law is still holy, righteous and good.
I think you have our dual natures conflated to one. This is handled by Paul in Rom 7 and 8. John does this in 1 Jn 1-3.I'm glad you brought this up as well, because earlier in this thread, when I brought up how we need to die to our sin daily, the response I got was that we are born dead and only need to be "born again" once. I see it as a life-long progression as we will never truly be without sin (it's the distinction of salvation and sanctification that people seem to get hung up on).
They weren't just confusing gentiles, they were also confusing Jewish Christians in the Galatian churches.No one can keep the Law perfectly. The Law doesn't save. This group of Judaizers were confusing the Gentiles, causing them to doubt their salvation and unsettling their souls.
You seem to be ignoring the context and the decision that was made at the council (which came straight from the Law regarding idolatry).
The context:
Acts 15:1-2 ~ While Paul and Barnabas were at Antioch of Syria, some men from Judea arrived and began to teach the believers : “Unless you are circumcised as required by the law of Moses, you cannot be saved.” Paul and Barnabas disagreed with them, arguing vehemently. Finally, the church decided to send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, accompanied by some local believers, to talk to the apostles and elders about this question.
The decision made about this:
Acts 15:19-20 ~ And so my judgment is that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from eating food offered to idols, from sexual immorality, from eating the meat of strangled animals, and from consuming blood.
Mat 5:27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.'
Mat 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
.
Same law but now even stricter! Now both physical and spiritual
No one can keep the Law perfectly. The Law doesn't save. This group of Judaizers were confusing the Gentiles, causing them to doubt their salvation and unsettling their souls.
You seem to be ignoring the context and the decision that was made at the council (which came straight from the Law regarding idolatry).
The context:
Acts 15:1-2 ~ While Paul and Barnabas were at Antioch of Syria, some men from Judea arrived and began to teach the believers : “Unless you are circumcised as required by the law of Moses, you cannot be saved.” Paul and Barnabas disagreed with them, arguing vehemently. Finally, the church decided to send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, accompanied by some local believers, to talk to the apostles and elders about this question.
The decision made about this:
Acts 15:19-20 ~ And so my judgment is that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from eating food offered to idols, from sexual immorality, from eating the meat of strangled animals, and from consuming blood.
It isn't the same law. Jer 31:31-33.Same law but now even stricter! Now both physical and spiritual
I can agree that the controversy was about more than circumcision or else the apostles, elders, and whole church wouldn't have come to this decision as to the resolution (the essential requirements given are directly from the Law of God):I am not the one who is ignoring the context in the passages below, which reveal that the controversy was about more than circumcision.
Any reason why you left out verses 20 & 21? Saving CF on some bandwith? You cut off the letter......I'm wondering why?Act 15:10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
(Since they did bear circumcision, this verse reveals that the controversy was also about the Law of Moses.)
Act 15:22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
Act 15:23 They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings.
Act 15:24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law"—to whom we gave no such commandment—
Correct. There were loads of laws pertaining to the Levitical priesthood that no longer applied since the priesthood was transferred to Jesus, our High Priest in the order of Melchizedek (whose priesthood is eternal and everlasting). He is the Lamb....He is the final sacrifice necessary....all of that pointed to Him and was then fulfilled. There was no further need for the Temple nor the human priesthood. Those were the laws that I believe were changed. The law never made a person complete. Those Temple practices covered sin....Jesus took away the sin of this world (but that's not a license to sin - our sins still carry their own consequences with them - that's not changed).Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.
Correct. There were loads of laws pertaining to the Levitical priesthood that no longer applied since the priesthood was transferred to Jesus, our High Priest in the order of Melchizedek (whose priesthood is eternal and everlasting). He is the Lamb....He is the final sacrifice necessary....all of that pointed to Him and was then fulfilled. There was no further need for the Temple nor the human priesthood. Those were the laws that I believe were changed. The law never made a person complete....those practices covered sin....Jesus took away the sin of this world (but that's not a license to sin - our sins still carry their own consequences with them - that's not changed).
That's why I made an issue about the word translated to "change" in our Bibles - and how the root word means "transfer". Jesus, Himself, said He didn't come to *abolish* the Law, but to fulfill the Law and the words of the Prophets. Others here in this thread seem to disagree with Him. He's written the Law on our hearts - how can we be completely separated from it?Therein lies the problem. Your belief is not the same as others. Some define the Law as being composed of two or three types of laws even though the scripture never does so for us. The Law is one body and cannot be picked apart at will to apply as we might see fit. Neither are the Ten Commandments any more or less significant than the other commandments. Either you are or are not under the Law. I thank God that through Jesus Christ I am set free from the Law, as the writer of Hebrews clearly teaches.
This is why Paul asks whether those who started out with the Spirit are now trying to be righteous by the law. They were on the right track before. If you want to be righteous focus more on Christ, and walking in the Spirit, rather than focusing on the law.
It is the Spirit that puts to death the things of the sinful nature, and lives out the fruit of the Spirit.
Galatians 5:
16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whateverc]">[c] you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.
.
Therein lies the problem. Your belief is not the same as others. Some define the Law as being composed of two or three types of laws even though the scripture never does so for us. The Law is one body and cannot be picked apart at will to apply as we might see fit. Neither are the Ten Commandments any more or less significant than the other commandments. Either you are or are not under the Law. I thank God that through Jesus Christ I am set free from the Law, as the writer of Hebrews clearly teaches.
.....and the response was:Yeshua HaDerekh said:That was not the question. I never said they were identical. The mediator now is Yeshua.
....is Jesus still saying "You shall not commit adultery" or not? This response (and all the others like it) seem to be missing that point. Jesus is retaining the same original instruction - He's just making it MORE stringent (not just an external behavior, but a heart attitude change as well). To abolish a law - it would mean it's no longer in affect. That would mean adultery is okay and acceptable (and I'm personally convinced Jesus was NOT stating that).BABerean2 said:Mat 5:27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.'
Mat 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Your post, yes.@yeshuaslavejeff - did you just agree with me? On purpose?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?