“The Law of Sin”

[Jethro Bodine]

Some doctrine in the church teaches that since the Ten C's are not written on tablets of stone anymore, but on tablets of flesh, that they can not be considered the law of Moses anymore, even though it is the same requirements of law. And it is this same legalistic reasoning that governs the rest of their thinking about the law of Moses and it's role in the New Covenant.

But the NT plainly teaches that the law of Moses is upheld and satisfied in this New Covenant...but just in the new way of the Spirit and faith in Christ, which may look different on the outside, but which is still a fulfillment and upholding of the law of Moses nonetheless. I've shared some of the NT scriptures that teach this.

The confusion comes in from not being able to discern between the old and the new way the requirements of the law of Moses get satisfied, not destroyed in this New Covenant, that the NT plainly talks about.

It's important to distinguish between the eternal requirements of the law of Moses, and the temporary way of the law of Moses to keep those requirements. As the NT scriptures teach us in the examples of Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread, The Day of Atonement, and Sabbath Rest the requirements of the law of Moses for these things did not go away. The way of the law of Moses to keep them is what went away.

 

[JLB]

Jethro said -

That WAY is what got put away. Not the requirements of law fulfilled by those things.

You have made some enlightening and well worded post's in the past.

I just simply don't agree with this particular statement you have made here.

Let me explain what I mean.

I believe the Ten Commandments are God's Law that He gave to Moses and the children of Israel.

I believe these Commandments existed before Mt Sinai.

I believe these Commandments are for Jew and Gentile as well as the Church.

On this I believe we agree.

When Paul explains the purpose of the Law, he states clearly -

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; Galatians 3:19

There were transgressions by the descendants of Abraham before the law was added.

That means Gods Commandments were transgressed [violated] before the law of Moses was added.

Added means there was something in addition.

The law of Moses contained additional requirements than what the original Covenant requirements contained.

Because the law was added, it became a part of the Covenant.

The law was not the whole covenant, but a part of it that was added.

The added part called the law, was done so by the Original Covenant Maker.

The Original Covenant Maker was The Lord, Himself.

The Original Covenant Maker was in fact The Seed who was to come. [Become Flesh]

Paul teaches us that the part that was added, would be in effect until the Seed should come.

Meaning: The additional part that was added, was no longer a valid part of the Covenant that The Lord made with Abraham.

The original commandments of God, that Abraham kept are still intact even though the additional parts that were added, have vanished [become invalid].

The New Covenant, which means fresh covenant, not different covenant still contains the original Laws and Commandments of God, though the added part [Moses Law] is no longer in effect.


I will stop here and hope you will comment on what I have said.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

When Paul explains the purpose of the Law, he states clearly -

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; Galatians 3:19

There were transgressions by the descendants of Abraham before the law was added.

There were transgressions by all people before the first covenant was added. Just three verse later, Paul shows he's talking about the law being given so that what was promised would be given to those who believe, not just to the direct descendants of Abraham.

The promise was that all nations would be blessed through Abraham. The promise is to everyone who believes, not just natural descendants of Abraham. IOW, the first covenant was added that all people of faith could be blessed along with Abraham.

The law of Moses contained additional requirements than what the original Covenant requirements contained.

Because the law was added, it became a part of the Covenant.

The law was not the whole covenant, but a part of it that was added.

Paul explains that no one can set aside, or add to a covenant, and so it is with the first covenant. It does not change the covenant God made with Abraham. It's a different covenant. The point being, the covenant added at Mount Sinai
doesn't annul or change the covenant God made with Abraham. It's an additional covenant, not a change to a covenant.

Paul teaches us that the part that was added, would be in effect until the Seed should come.

Hebrews explains what that first covenant that was added is. It's a covenant of temple, priest, and priesthood, and all the worship stipulations associated with worship within that covenant, that way of worship. But it's a covenant--a method and way to deal with the transgressions of those who would be blessed along with Abraham--that was only needed until the Covenant that the first covenant only shadowed appeared. That new Covenant being Jesus Christ himself and that new way of dealing with the transgressions of those who would be blessed along with Abraham the man of faith.

Meaning: The additional part that was added, was no longer a valid part of the Covenant that The Lord made with Abraham.

It was never a part of the covenant with Abraham in the first place. It's an additional covenant of temple, priest, and priesthood, and sacrifice, and ways of utilizing those things added because of transgressions. Transgressions that were atoned for through that added covenant. Thus the need for that covenant. That is until a better one appeared to deal with and finish transgression.

The New Covenant, which means fresh covenant, not different covenant still contains the original Laws and Commandments of God, though the added part [Moses Law] is no longer in effect.

It is a different covenant than the first covenant. And it's 'new' because it's a Covenant with a different Priest, and Priesthood, and Temple, and Sacrifice. It's a new Covenant, a new way to deal with the transgressions of those who would inherit the promises along with Abraham.

 

[BigSodaExposer]

But the bar was already set that high:

"17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”" (Exodus 20:17 NASB)

"17 ‘You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart... " (Leviticus 15:17 NASB)

I do not agree with the first point. IMO coveting my neighbors wife is like "My neighbor is a ugly piece of trash, he doesn't deserve his beautiful wife when I have no one" To me its that greed and lust is "coveting". Some will argue that coveting and lusting is the same thing. Not every woman in public is my neighbor nor belongs to my neighbor in marriage. I can agree with your use of Leviticus 15:17

 

[JLB]

Jethro said -

It was never a part of the covenant with Abraham in the first place.

I want to address this statement, because it seems to be the foundation of your belief.

I used the words of scripture in my post, so as to be extremely careful not to change what Paul says to suit my belief.


What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; Galatians 3:19
The purpose of the law; it was added because of transgressions...

The context of what Paul wrote here teaches us:

The law was added to the Abrahamic Covenant.

The law was a part of the Abrahamic Covenant.

The law was given to the natural descendants of Abraham, ie; the children of Israel.

The law of Moses was not given to the gentile nations.

The blessing of Abraham has come upon the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, not through the law of Moses.

that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

JLB

 

[JLB]

There were transgressions by all people before the first covenant was added.

Are you under the impression that the law of Moses preceded the Abrahamic Covenant?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The law was added to the Abrahamic Covenant.

Yes, it was added to, but not incorporated within, the covenant God made with Abraham. If it was incorporated within, as you say, that would change the covenant with Abraham to the promise being conditioned on observance of a law instead of on a promise:

"18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise." (Galatians 3:18 NASB)

The law was a part of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Paul uses the truth that we know and understand about human covenants to show us that this is incorrect:

"15 Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it.
17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate (nor change--see vs. 15 above) a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise."
(Galatians 3:15,17 NASB parenthesis mine)

The law was given to the natural descendants of Abraham, ie; the children of Israel.

The law of Moses was not given to the gentile nations.

Obviously.

But that hardly means the law is not for gentiles. God gave instructions in the law that any gentile who joined himself to the people of God were to adhere to the same law as the native Israelite in their worship of God (Numbers 15). The point is, the law was for the people of God--those who would seek the blessing promised to Abraham. This included gentiles. In fact, this is the stark truth that the Jews could not grasp, even after the resurrection of Christ. But Paul shows how the promise does include the gentiles. Always has. Not godless gentiles, but gentiles who choose to join themselves to the nation and people of God.

The point is, when gentiles sought the blessing of Abraham, the covenant of law did apply to them, to the extent that it could be legally and practically applied. Gentiles who seek after the God of Israel now belong to the people of God. And the law was most certainly for the people of God, both Israelite and god fearing gentile--and for them because of their transgressions. Transgressions that keep a person out of the promised blessings, but blessings which can not be secured by not having transgressions, alone, but which are secured by faith in the promise.

The blessing of Abraham has come upon the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, not through the law of Moses.

that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Right. But sin will keep you out of the blessings. Not sinning will not secure them for you, but sin will definitely keep you out of them. Thus the need for the first covenant of law--a way and system of 1) clearly codifying what that sin is, and 2) a system and way of dealing with that sin so that the people of God can enter into that which their faith in the promise can secure for them.

Now we know that first system couldn't deal with the fundamental problem of man and his sin, the sin that keeps him out of the promises of God. That problem being the sin nature--the mindset of sin that grips all people, because of Adam. In fact, the first covenant not only couldn't deal with that problem, it just locked a person all the more into the bondage of sin. Thus the need for a 'new' covenant of Temple, Priest, and Sacrifice to deal with the transgressions of those who seek the blessings promised to Abraham's seed. One that not only forgives all sins a person commits (the law did not do that--Acts 13:39), but one that cleanses the conscience by literally changing the mindset of a person (by the Holy Spirit).

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Are you under the impression that the law of Moses preceded the Abrahamic Covenant?

No. That's not my point.

My point is, the Israelites are not the only one's who sought Abraham's blessing. Nor were they the only one's allowed to seek it. The first covenant of law, added because of transgression, was added for the gentile's transgressions, too. So they, too, would not be disqualified for the blessing that comes to all by faith in the promises of God.

Theoretical sinlessness does not secure the blessing. That is impossible. But it will keep a person out of the blessing. This was as true for the gentile who wanted to join the people of God in line to receive the blessing promised to Abraham's seed as it was for the Israelites themselves.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

IMO coveting my neighbors wife is like "My neighbor is a ugly piece of trash, he doesn't deserve his beautiful wife when I have no one" To me its that greed and lust is "coveting".

Can anyone lust after something without coveting that thing? But I can see how you can covet something without lusting after it.

Jesus' teaching to the married Pharisees (you had to be married to be a Pharisee), who are sure they are perfect law abiding Jews, is showing them that they aren't as law abiding as they think they are. Besides showing them that they have adultery in them, he's making them see that lusting is coveting. They were all about the externals--what they actually did, and not about the internals, what they thought (cups clean on the outside, but dirty on the inside). Coveting is prohibited by the law, but it's an internal thing that they were so blind to, but which the law also clearly prohibits. Jesus is hitting them where it hurts.

 

[JLB]

Jethro said -

Yes, it was added to, but not incorporated within, the covenant God made with Abraham. If it was incorporated within, as you say, that would change the covenant with Abraham to the promise being conditioned on observance of a law instead of on a promise:

"18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise." (Galatians 3:18 NASB)

The law itself was added to the Abrahamic Covenant, until the seed should come.

The scripture states that the law did not have the power to nullify the Covenant.

17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. Galatians 3:17

The greater Abrahamic Covenant could not be nullified by the law being added to it.


The law was added because of transgressions to the Covenant by the children of Israel.

Notice what God keeps repeating during to the children of Israel -

See, I have set the land before you; go in and possess the land which the Lord swore to your fathers--to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob--to give to them and their descendants after them.'

God promised to give the descendants of Abraham, Issac and Jacob the land of Israel.

Circumcision was before the Law and was required during the time the law was implemented.

The law was added to and became a part of the Covenant of Abraham, TEMPORARILY, ie; until the Seed should come and declare the the covenant of Abraham had been renewed.

That is what New Covenant means. Not a brand New different Covenant, but that The Covenant of Abraham had been renewed.

The Covenant Maker had to become flesh in order to have blood. Blood is what seals a Covenant. This is what Circumcision does on Abraham's and His descendants part.

We are grafted in to that Covenant in Christ. We are not grated into the law of Moses in Christ.

We are not under the law but under Grace.

The law was not a new way for them to obtain the blessing, but rather it was added so that God could continue to bless them with the blessing of Abraham, though they had transgressed the covenant.

Walk before Me and be blameless.

Walk with Me.

Walk in the Spirit.

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.


JLB

 

[Sparkey]

I was recently reminded of the FoS rule:

Only one size font is to be used throughout your entire post.
Only black font may be used when posting. The only exception to this rule is that actual scripture text maybe written in a secondary color.

I've gone through the past several posts and have stripped the formatting (pardon if I missed any). Thankfully, it's just a matter of highlighting and pressing a single "Remove Formatting" button.

Kindly modify your posting style(s) to conform to the Stickies for this forum.
~Sparrowhawke

 

[JLB]

Jethro said -

No. That's not my point.

My point is, the Israelites are not the only one's who sought Abraham's blessing.

The Lord made a Covenant with Abraham, which included Abraham's descendants through Issac and Jacob.

The particular Covenant did not include Abraham's descendants through Ishmael.

Though God promised to bless Ishmael, The covenant that The Lord made with Abraham included the children of Israel.

The law that was added until the Seed has been annulled.

15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest 16 who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. 17 For He testifies: "You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek." 18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness,19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. Hebrews 7:15-18

The law was not for gentiles, as it excluded the intermarriage of the children of Israel and the nations.

The Abraham covenant has always included that all the nations of the world would be blessed, through the sacrifice of the Seed, who is Christ.

Abraham was unique, as his life typified the christian who is neither Jew nor Gentile, or who is both Jew and Gentile.

For he is a Jew who is one inwardly.

As long as the law is still in place then the Gentiles would be excluded.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The scripture states that the law did not have the power to nullify the Covenant.

Nor change the covenant of Abraham:

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case (the case of the covenant with Abraham--see context)." (Galatians 3:15 NIV)

But your doctrine says the addition of the covenant of law, the first covenant, was a change to the Abrahamic Covenant and not just an addition to that covenant. Paul shows us that's not even allowed in our human covenants to illustrate how the first covenant does not nullify or change the covenant God made with Abraham.

So, the first covenant is a distinct and separate covenant added to the Abrahamic covenant. And as I've shown, it was a distinct covenant added to deal with the sin issue of those who would be of the seed to whom the promises were made. Not that their transgressions would qualify them to enter into the promises as if the promise comes by the law, but that those transgressions would not keep them out. The truth of which is taught in these scriptures:

19 For I have chosen him (Abraham), so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him.” (Genesis 18:19 NASB)

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23 NASB parenthesis mine)

"Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NASB)

"14 Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord." (Hebrews 12:14 NIV)

17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. Galatians 3:17

The greater Abrahamic Covenant could not be nullified by the law being added to it.

Correct, but because of sin, that cuts one off from the seed that inherits the promises, it was required that an additional covenant to deal with that sin be added to the covenant of the promise already in force, so that the sins of those who would walk in the footsteps of the faith of Abraham would not disqualify themselves from entering into the promises secured by the covenant made with Abraham and his seed. The problem was, that first covenant that got added to the covenant of Promise could not adequately deal with sin, therefore, God established a New Covenant, a new way to deal with transgression:

"18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God." (Hebrews 7:18 NIV)
"7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.8 But God found fault with the people..." (Hebrews 8:7 NIV)

"13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean (the old way) sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean." (Hebrews 9:13 NIV parenthesis mine)

"15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant,that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant." (Hebrews 9:15 NIV)

Circumcision was before the Law and was required during the time the law was implemented.

Yes, required before, during, and after the law. Which is another example of the law that proves my point. The requirements of the law of Moses are not what changed. The way they get fulfilled is what changed in this New Covenant.

Paul teaches us how the lawful requirement for circumcision doesn't change in this New Covenant, but rather how it is fulfilled to God's complete and total satisfaction gets changed--or rightly, now understood in regard to what the law only illustrated. Faith upholds the lawful requirement for circumcision, not removes it. But not in the old way of the letter of the law of Moses, but in the new way of the Spirit and faith in Jesus Christ:

"6 But now, by dying to what once bound us (the sin nature--see context), we have been released from the law (that bound us to the sin nature--see context) so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." (Romans 7:6 NIV)

Literal circumcision--the old way...of the letter.

Circumcision of the heart--the new way...by the Spirit.


So you see the lawful requirement for circumcision did not go away. It's just as required to be circumcised now in this New Covenant as it was before and during the law. But now we 'do' that in the new 'way' of faith in Christ and the circumcision of the heart by the Spirit. This is how, as I've been pointing out, faith upholds the righteous requirements of the law, not does away with them. But some doctrine is sure that new requirements have been established which do away with the righteous requirements of the law.

"31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (Romans 3:31 NIV). Not always literally, but in the new way of the Spirit, as I've been saying.

Walking in this new way of the Spirit, as opposed to the old way of the letter, does not violate the law:

"Against such things (the things of the Spirit--see context) there is no law (IOW-no violation of law)." (Galatians 5:23 NIV)

The Covenant Maker had to become flesh in order to have blood. Blood is what seals a Covenant. This is what Circumcision does on Abraham's and His descendants part.

No, circumcision is symbolic of the cutting away of the deeds of the flesh. That's why it serves such a useful illustration for how it is necessary to be circumcised to be in the Abrahamic covenant.

The sin nature that transgresses, as illustrated in the foreskin of flesh, disqualifies a person from the promise of the Abrahamic covenant. The sin nature that transgresses must be circumcised, that is, cut off, in order for a person to be joined to the seed to whom the promises were given. Let's visit that stipulation of the promise again:

19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.” (Genesis 18:19 NIV)

The old covenant was the way that was added to deal with the 'doing wrong' of the sin nature that forfeits the promise. Sinlessness doesn't secure the promise, but it does disqualify one from it. Faith in the promise is what actually secures the blessing. Sin, the sin we inherited from Adam embodied in what is called the sin nature, blocks you from it.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

We are grafted in to that Covenant in Christ. We are not grated into the law of Moses in Christ.

Right. And nobody's saying we are.

We are not under the law but under Grace.

Right. The old way of dealing with sin, the way of the law of Moses, is what got replaced by the New Covenant, the new way of dealing with sin, which is through the grace of forgiveness by a better Sacrifice and Priesthood and Temple. But to suggest that this New Covenant somehow does away with the measure of sin codified in the first covenant is ridiculous.

Both covenants deal with the same sin that stands in the way of the Promise. The very sin written down in the first covenant, so that man is without excuse or debate about what sin is and needs to be dealt with, and which is still sinful, in this New Covenant. But as it is, somehow the church understood the 'passing away' of the first covenant to deal with sin as also meaning the sin codified in that covenant also passed away giving way to a different measure and understanding of sin guilt. This is what gives strength to her misguided understanding about entering into the promises the way Abraham did, by faith, and thinking that their obedience, or disobedience plays no part whatsoever in their salvation.

The law was not a new way for them to obtain the blessing, but rather it was added so that God could continue to bless them with the blessing of Abraham, though they had transgressed the covenant.

Nobody's saying the law of Moses was how to obtain the promised blessing. The argument is, the way of the law of Moses was added to deal with the sin that stands in the way of the promise that is secured by faith.

That first way, that first covenant to deal with the sin issue was laid aside in favor of a New Way, a New Covenant to deal with the sin issue. One that actually works. But because of decades and decades and decades of bad teaching about this subject it has become to be understood that grace is a license to sin--meaning my obedience or disobedience has no bearing whatsoever on my salvation, because salvation is so utterly by God's grace alone (as the church misunderstands that). That was not true for Abraham, and it is not true for us.

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

Who's in argument with this? We who are in Jesus Christ and walk according to the new way of the Spirit are no longer under the condemnation spelled out by the law of Moses for those who sin. But the church thinks that no longer being under the law means not being under the righteous requirements of the law anymore and that to sin or not to sin does not affect your salvation.

The law of Moses is how we know without argument or debate what the sin is in the 'law of sin and death'. So how is it not possible to think 'law of Moses' when we think of the law of sin and death, which says 'if you sin (defined for us by the law of Moses) you die'. Thank God for the New Covenant that actually can deal with the sins "committed under the first covenant" (Hebrews 9:15 NIV) so that we can indeed inherit the promises made to the Seed of Abraham by faith.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The Lord made a Covenant with Abraham, which included Abraham's descendants through Issac and Jacob.

The particular Covenant did not include Abraham's descendants through Ishmael.

Though God promised to bless Ishmael, The covenant that The Lord made with Abraham included the children of Israel.

We see the 'descendants' of Abraham God was talking about are those who have the faith of Abraham, not just the literal offspring of Abraham:

"12 And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised." (Romans 4: 12 NIV)
"16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all." (Romans 4:16 NIV)

So, to deal with the topic at hand, when God installs a covenant to deal with the sins of Abraham's offspring he is most definitely talking about a covenant, the first covenant, that applies to both Jew and gentile. Just as the New Covenant sent to replace that first covenant also applies to the descendants of Abraham, those who walk in the footsteps of faith of Abraham.

The law that was added until the Seed has been annulled.

15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest 16 who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. 17 For He testifies: "You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek." 18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness,19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. Hebrews 7:15-18

The law was not for gentiles, as it excluded the intermarriage of the children of Israel and the nations.

But it did not exclude them from the sacrificial system of worship that the first covenant was to them. That first system of temple, priesthood, and sacrifice is what got laid aside. Not the requirements for worship themselves that the old way of worship sought to satisfy. An old system of worship that did indeed include gentiles.

Which only makes sense since sin removal is for the people of faith, not just for the natural descendants of Abraham, and for whom the system of sin removal was put into place to help. Sin didn't just keep the Israelites out of the promises. It kept the gentiles who wanted to join the natural people of promise out, too. That system of cleansing was for them to, for the same purpose.

The Abraham covenant has always included that all the nations of the world would be blessed, through the sacrifice of the Seed, who is Christ.

Abraham was unique, as his life typified the christian who is neither Jew nor Gentile, or who is both Jew and Gentile.

For he is a Jew who is one inwardly.

As long as the law is still in place then the Gentiles would be excluded.


JLB

Gentiles excluded? I don't think so:

"13 “‘Everyone who is native-born must do these things in this way when they present a food offering as an aroma pleasing to the Lord.14 For the generations to come, whenever a foreigner or anyone else living among you presents a food offering as an aroma pleasing to the Lord, they must do exactly as you do.15 The community is to have the same rules for you and for the foreigner residing among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the foreigner shall be the same before the Lord:16 The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the foreigner residing among you.’”" (Numbers 15:13-16 NIV)

I don't see the gentiles being excluded from the first covenant. I see them being told that if they be joined to the people of Israel and make offerings of sacrifice that they must do it according to the exact same rules as the native Israelites.

 

[JLB]

JLB said: ↑
We are grafted in to that Covenant in Christ. We are not grated into the law of Moses in Christ.

Jethro said -

Right. And nobody's saying we are.

Great. Now you can agree that if you are not in the Covenant at Sinai, you are most certainly not required to uphold or abide by the Covenant requirements.


Simple.

And this is what I have been saying for about a year now.

Gentiles who were not in the Covenant, are not obligated to adhere to, nor uphold it's requirements.

We are however obligated to uphold the righteous requirements that were maintained by Abraham and were extended through to the law and the Covenant at Sinai.

This is the righteous requirement of the law, which manifest's the commandment's, precepts, and laws that Abraham walked in and learned from God by walking in His presence.

Though there were additional requirements in the law of Moses, such as animal sacrifices for transgressing God's laws that were instituted in the original Abrahamic covenant.

Once the law that was added, was annulled, the original Laws of God that were mandated in the Abraham covenant remained intact.



JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...you are most certainly not required to uphold or abide by the Covenant requirements.

Gentiles who were not in the Covenant, are not obligated to adhere to, nor uphold it's requirements.

It's impossible to defend that statement, for Paul plainly says we do uphold the requirements of the law by the faith in Christ that justifies:

31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (Romans 3:31 NIV)

What the church can't grasp is that we do that (uphold the law) in the new way of the Spirit, not in the old way of the written letter of the law:

"...we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." (Romans 7:6 NIV)

Circumcision, Sabbath Rest, Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread, The Day of Atonement....all requirements of the law of Moses...are explained in the NT as being upheld in this New Covenant in the new way of the Spirit and faith in Christ. But some doctrines teach that faith does not uphold these and other lawful requirements, in clear contradiction to the abundance of proof that it does, and in the way that it does.

Church, don't be afraid to think 'law of Moses' when the four letter word of the church, 'law', gets used. Just understand what the role of the law is in this New Covenant, that's all. That will put an end to this knee-jerk reaction to the mere utterance of 'the law' that has led the church into dangerous doctrines of justification by grace that have no obligation attached to it for the person receiving grace to do works of righteousness for fear that turns that grace into a 'works' salvation.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You see the problem is, so many in the church have no capacity to distinguish between the letter of the law of Moses, and the righteous requirements themselves in the law of Moses. So when someone says 'requirements of the law of Moses' they instantly think of the letter of the law of Moses and have no capacity whatsoever to think of the law of Moses in terms of the righteous requirements the letter represents, even though the NT illustrates for us how to do that.

What gets upheld by faith are the righteous requirements of the law, not the letter of the law. But to an indoctrinated church, that can only be understood as meaning the letter of the law of Moses as if the argument is 'faith upholds the literal letter of the law of Moses'. Which from there, of course, instantly evokes a rabid fear of trying to be justified by works, thus equating law in any way shape or form to the damnable 'works' gospel Paul rails against. Their remedy for that? Never, ever use the word 'law' in a grace discussion. Or at least, never ever let 'law' mean the law of Moses.

 

[JLB]

Jethro said -

It's impossible to defend that statement, for Paul plainly says we do uphold the requirements of the law by the faith in Christ that justifies:

31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (Romans 3:31 NIV)

Brother, what you or anyone else can not deny is: If you are not in the Covenant at Sinai, you are not obligated to uphold It's requirements.

What you just don't seem to understand is: God's laws that Abraham kept as a part of that Covenant were not annulled by the law, but were required to be upheld by the law.

The commandments at Sinai came from the Abraham Covenant.

What was added were the Levitical priesthood, animal sacrifices, feast days, ceremonial washings, food laws, as well as stringent Sabbath stipulations.

The righteous commandments and laws that Abraham walked in, is what the children of Israel transgressed.

God made a way for them to have theses sins and transgressions "atoned for" through animal sacrifices SO THAT He could continue to bless them with the blessing of Abraham.

Without God's blessing the children of Israel would have never been able to take the promise land by driving out the gentile nations.

All of this activity came from what God had promised Abraham.

The Abraham Covenant is the Primary Covenant of which we are grafted into, in Christ.

The law was always temporary.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Brother, what you or anyone else can not deny is: If you are not in the Covenant at Sinai, you are not obligated to uphold It's requirements.

Like I say, the church can only understand the requirements of the law in terms of the letter of the law.

Unless you're bringing some fresh defense to the table I'm 73 & 88 for now.