“The Law of Sin”

[BigSodaExposer]

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.

Jesus provided the human perspective. Like the parable of the lost sheep "If a man has a hundred sheep and one of them wanders away, what will he do? Won’t he leave the ninety-nine others on the hills and go out to search for the one that is lost? 13 And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he will rejoice over it more than over the ninety-nine that didn’t wander away! 14 In the same way, it is not my heavenly Father’s will that even one of these little ones should perish."

Not a logical thing to do. But it is a human thing to do.

For all the worldlings out there. This is the scene in Star Trek II with spock dying on one side of the glass and kirk on the other crying. "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few...or the one" Spock says with his stone cold logic and dying breath. But to Kirk that was his friend, and his human emotions are like the man rejoicing over the one sheep and forgetting the 99 he left behind.

 

[JLB]

Jethro said -

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

How else to we teach our children and young people not to lie, if not by the letter of the law.

Do not bear false witness needs to be obeyed to the letter of the law.

Likewise do not steal means; DO NOT STEAL!

Obedience to these commandments is to be obeyed to the letter of the law.


I agree with you on many things concerning the Church's gross misunderstanding of how God's law relates to the New Covenant.

Much clear and balanced teaching is needed in this matter.

I had hoped we could have made some head way in our discussions in this arena.


This following phrase should be the foundation of any meaningful discussion in the matter of how the law relates to the Christian today.


The commandments at Sinai came from the Abrahamic Covenant.


God bless you in your quest for the truth.


JLB

 

[Deborah13]

I agree with you on many things concerning the Church's gross misunderstanding of how God's law relates to the New Covenant.

Much clear and balanced teaching is needed in this matter.

I had hoped we could have made some head way in our discussions in this arena.


This following phrase should be the foundation of any meaningful discussion in the matter of how the law relates to the Christian today.


The commandments at Sinai came from the Abrahamic Covenant.


God bless you in your quest for the truth.


JLB

As far as I see, the Church is still teaching the 10 Commandments are for today. Their still teaching them in Sunday school to kids.

There were clearly moral and worship laws before Abraham. Cain knew when he murdered Abel it was against God righteousness. They both were giving offerings to God. They had to have learned this somewhere. God didn't just quit communing with Adam and Eve after the garden. And they had eatten from the Tree of the knowledge GOOD and evil. They knew the difference.
Man over time, through fleshy desires, chose to ignore what they once knew of God.

That's what I believe anyway.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

As far as I see, the Church is still teaching the 10 Commandments are for today. Their still teaching them in Sunday school to kids.

Then when they turn 18 and go to church in the sanctuary, teaching the Ten Commandments is suddenly a works gospel.

It's impossible to suggest that the church doesn't have this irrational fear of the law. This and dozens and dozens of other threads over the years on Christian forums representing many Christians and their various backgrounds prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. 'Law' and 'works' really are the four letter words of the Protestant Church that should never be uttered in a grace conversation because that would make the gospel of grace a gospel of works.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jethro said -

Like I say, the church can only understand the requirements of the law in terms of the letter of the law.
How else to we teach our children and young people not to lie, if not by the letter of the law.
Do not bear false witness needs to be obeyed to the letter of the law.

Likewise do not steal means; DO NOT STEAL!

Obedience to these commandments is to be obeyed to the letter of the law.

Obedience to these commandments is to be obeyed to the letter of the law.

But then try to talk to the church about how faith upholds, not violates, lawful requirements for circumcision, Sabbath Rest, etc., and they stay stuck in the same rut of only being able to understand requirements of the law in regard to the letter of the law and will resist you fiercely out of a misguided fear that you're promoting a works gospel.

We're not to teach the way of the law of Moses in regard to those things I just listed. We are teach fulfillment of those things in the new way of the Spirit. But this irrational fear of the law has blinded the eyes of so many in the church to doing that. And worst of all, this blindness has allowed doctrines of works-less faith and salvation to overtake the Protestant Church.

 

[JLB]

But then try to talk to the church about how faith upholds, not violates, lawful requirements for circumcision, Sabbath Rest, etc., and they stay stuck in the same rut of only being able to understand requirements of the law in regard to the letter of the law and will resist you fiercely out of a misguided fear that you're promoting a works gospel.

We're not to teach the way of the law of Moses in regard to those things I just listed. We are teach fulfillment of those things in the new way of the Spirit. But this irrational fear of the law has blinded the eyes of so many in the church to doing that. And worst of all, this blindness has allowed doctrines of works-less faith and salvation to overtake the Protestant Church.

Could we stay in the vein of the comments that I made, and how they relate to the two concepts were are discussing.

I would like us to find the common ground that we both agree on.

I believe that the 10 Commandments are to be kept in terms of the letter of the law.

I don't believe that because we believe the Gospel and are baptized in water and baptized in the Holy Spirit, that we are somehow excluded from keeping or doing what the 10 commandments, require; such as do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery, as well as The sabbath.

Which means we are to keep what they say to the letter.

I believe that man needs a day of rest each week, literally.

I don't believe that man is required to keep the sabbath as prescribed in the law of Moses.

[ The law of Moses required that no one could gather sticks, as well as it required that the congregation put to death those that violated the specific rules.]

I hope this is some common ground we can agree on.

The Ten Commandments were requirements from the Abrahamic covenant that Abraham learned by walking with God.

This is the way God had intended for Adam to learn as well.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Could we stay in the vein of the comments that I made, and how they relate to the two concepts were are discussing.

I would like us to find the common ground that we both agree on.

I believe that the 10 Commandments are to be kept in terms of the letter of the law.

I don't believe that because we believe the Gospel and are baptized in water and baptized in the Holy Spirit, that we are somehow excluded from keeping or doing what the 10 commandments, require; such as do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery, as well as The sabbath.

Which means we are to keep what they say to the letter.

I believe that man needs a day of rest each week, literally.

I don't believe that man is required to keep the sabbath as prescribed in the law of Moses.

Right. What you're saying is the way of the law of Moses is what got laid aside (not the fundamental requirement itself of the law of Moses to 'keep' Sabbath). If you can agree with that, that is our common ground, and what I've been saying in forums on-line for years now.

But it is interesting to see some in the church still see even that new way in a literal sense. Nothing wrong with that. I'm just sharing an observation.

[ The law of Moses required that no one could gather sticks, as well as it required that the congregation put to death those that violated the specific rules.]

I hope this is some common ground we can agree on.

These requirements did not really go away, either. Even these are upheld, not tread down under foot, in the new way of the Spirit and faith in Christ in this New Covenant.

The works we refrain from are the selfish works of self-preservation of the sin nature--greed, lust, envy, hatred....all the evil human works we do to protect and preserve our lives instead of trusting in that which God has sent down from heaven to do that for us. Because God has provided manna from heaven in this appointed Day of Rest of Christ's appearing, we don't have to rely on our evil works to preserve life and are commanded to turn from them and trust in the manna to sustain life. The step of faith for us is to believe that and make a conscious decision to not indulge our old works of self-preservation in the Day of Christ's Sabbath Rest and rely on the provision of manna God has provided instead as commanded.

And anyone who does not enter into a 'rest' from those kinds of works through faith in Christ will surely die and not see eternal life.

So you see, there is really no law of Moses that does not get upheld, or which does not have to be satisfied in some way, in this New Covenant. Just as Paul says, faith really does uphold the law of Moses, not nullify it (Romans 3:31).

Not making trouble. Just trying to get the church to see that they need not fear the law...and not be afraid to call it the law.

 

[JLB]

Jethro said -

Right. What you're saying is the way of the law of Moses is what got laid aside (not the fundamental requirement itself of the law of Moses to 'keep' Sabbath). If you can agree with that, that is our common ground, and what I've been saying in forums on-line for years now.

Close.

What I'm saying is the way of the law of Moses is what got laid aside (not the fundamental requirement itself of the law of God that Abraham walked in to 'keep' Sabbath)

The law was added, which means God's law was not called the law of Moses.

God's seventh day of rest, was added to and became a law with the penalty of death when the law of Moses was added.

The law of Moses itself was set aside, what remains intact is God's seventh day of rest that was made for man.

Do not lie.

Do not steal.

Do not murder.

Do not commit adultery.

These commandments were provisions within the Abrahamic Covenant.

These commandments need to be kept today.

 

[Deborah13]

Right. What you're saying is the way of the law of Moses is what got laid aside (not the fundamental requirement itself of the law of Moses to 'keep' Sabbath). If you can agree with that, that is our common ground, and what I've been saying in forums on-line for years now.

But it is interesting to see some in the church still see even that new way in a literal sense. Nothing wrong with that. I'm just sharing an observation.

These requirements did not really go away, either. Even these are upheld, not tread down under foot, in the new way of the Spirit and faith in Christ in this New Covenant.

The works we refrain from are the selfish works of self-preservation of the sin nature--greed, lust, envy, hatred....all the evil human works we do to protect and preserve our lives instead of trusting in that which God has sent down from heaven to do that for us. Because God has provided manna from heaven in this appointed Day of Rest of Christ's appearing, we don't have to rely on our evil works to preserve life and are commanded to turn from them and trust in the manna to sustain life. The step of faith for us is to believe that and make a conscious decision to not indulge our old works of self-preservation in the Day of Christ's Sabbath Rest and rely on the provision of manna God has provided instead as commanded.

And anyone who does not enter into a 'rest' from those kinds of works through faith in Christ will surely die and not see eternal life.

So you see, there is really no law of Moses that does not get upheld, or which does not have to be satisfied in some way, in this New Covenant. Just as Paul says, faith really does uphold the law of Moses, not nullify it (Romans 3:31).

That is not what I see Paul saying in this verse. Paul has just gone through a whole expose' to the Jews about the Law not justifying them. Then he says this last verse, "does that make the Law VOID"
Empty, without a purpose. There was/is a purpose for the Law. To bring one to Christ the Savior, in the OT to faith, relying on God for His grace and mercy, to bring to repentance. Does faith change that purpose and make it void, NO.

The Law was not made for a righteous man but for the unbeliever (not in faith). We are righteous in Christ. The Law of Moses is not for the believer.

We are the proof that the Law is not void. That is what Paul means when he says that the Law is established in us. We are believers by faith, living proof that the Law is not void. The Law did it's job in us, that we received the Savior, admitting that we cannot save ourselves.

Not making trouble. Just trying to get the church to see that they need not fear the law...and not be afraid to call it the law.

The only people who fear the Law are the ones who do not understand why it was given and that it is not for the believer, Jew or Gentile.
The Orthodox Jews today fear the Law, they are not in faith. Their faith is in the Law, not in redemption by grace through faith, in Christ.
Was King David under the Law? Or was he in faith?

 

[JLB]

Jethro said -

So you see, there is really no law of Moses that does not get upheld, or which does not have to be satisfied in some way, in this New Covenant. Just as Paul says, faith really does uphold the law of Moses, not nullify it (Romans 3:31).

I see this by the context of Paul's discourse - [Romans 3-4]

1 What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision?

9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. 1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?

I believe by the context of this letter, that "we" in verse 31 is a reference to the natural offspring of Abraham, as can be clearly seen in the next verse after verse 31, as he states -

On the contrary, we establish the law. 1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?


Only the natural descendants of Abraham through Issac were a part of the covenant of Abraham, as well as the covenant at Sinai.

As Paul states - 1 What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? 2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.

Gentiles were under the law of sin and death just as the descendants of Abraham.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Close.

What I'm saying is the way of the law of Moses is what got laid aside (not the fundamental requirement itself of the law of God that Abraham walked in to 'keep' Sabbath)

The law was added, which means God's law was not called the law of Moses.

The WAY of the law was added.

In context, the NT refers to that which is not nullified as the law of Moses. Jesus said he did not come to abolish that law, but to fulfill it. And Paul said faith upholds that law not nullifies it. In context, both are the law of Moses.

What gets laid aside is that which was added, that is, the WAY of the law of Moses, not the requirements found in the law of Moses which Jesus said get fulfilled, not nullified, and which Paul said get upheld, not nullified. The whole context of scripture shows us that what that means is the requirements of the law remain and are upheld, but what 'goes away' is the WAY those requirements get fulfilled.

God's seventh day of rest, was added to and became a law with the penalty of death when the law of Moses was added.

The WAY of Moses regarding the Sabbath was added. Literal sticks, and fires, and stonings were what were codefied and then set aside, not the spiritual truth of ceasing from one's own labors in God's appointed Sabbath, Jesus Christ, and dying spiritually for not doing that. As Jesus said, he did not come to abolish the law. But your doctrine has him abolishing the law by claiming that what really continues is the limited universal knowledge of God's lawful requirements before Mt. Sanai. That does not explain Jesus saying he did not come to nullify the law of Moses.

Do not lie.

Do not steal.

Do not murder.

Do not commit adultery.

These commandments were provisions within the Abrahamic Covenant.

These commandments need to be kept today.

Even these Commands of Moses, though still kept literally in this New Covenant, are kept in the new way of the Spirit.

All of these Commandments are summarized in 'love your neighbor as yourself' (Romans 13:9). And Paul says faith--the new WAY to serve God--works itself out through our love (Galatians 5:6). IOW, faith--the new way to serve God--is how we uphold the Commandments you listed above. That happens when our love is worked out through our faith.

Do you understand?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

That is not what I see Paul saying in this verse. Paul has just gone through a whole expose' to the Jews about the Law not justifying them. Then he says this last verse, "does that make the Law VOID"
Empty, without a purpose. There was/is a purpose for the Law. To bring one to Christ the Savior, in the OT to faith, relying on God for His grace and mercy, to bring to repentance. Does faith change that purpose and make it void, NO.

Here's Vines entry about the verse:

'...the preaching of the Gospel could not "make of none effect" the moral enactments of the Law, Rom 3:31'

IOW, the new way of faith does not nullify (make of none effect) the moral requirements of the law. They are upheld by faith, not done away with. This is what I've been saying.

If you're interested, click on 'Vines Entry' in the middle of the page of this link: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2673&t=KJV
It's an interesting read.

The Law was not made for a righteous man but for the unbeliever (not in faith). We are righteous in Christ. The Law of Moses is not for the believer.

The element of the law that he is talking about that is not for believers is simply the way of temple, priest, and sacrifice (remember, what he's fighting against in his ministry is the contention that the worship style of the old covenant has to be retained--i.e. the Galatians, the Corinthians).

We know he's not talking about the moral parts of the law of Moses, nor even the spiritual truths the literal worship method and schedule typified, but the literal way of the law of Moses for worship and the contention that the church must adhere to them. We know that because we see the laws of Moses being taught to the church in the NT. That's hardly consistent with your interpretation of Paul's words. See what I'm saying? You're basically saying the law is for unbelievers, yet we see the Apostles teaching the requirements of the law (not the way of the law of Moses) to the church, as I've shown.

So, what is NOT for believers in regard to the law is the old way of worship, in a word the old way of dealing with sin through it's required worship method and schedule--a sin guilt that believers no longer have, but a sin guilt that the wicked people Paul lists do have. Understand? This is explained in Hebrews. The Day of Atonement--the old way of the law of Moses for dealing with sin--is not for those who have been justified through the new way of faith in Christ.

We are the proof that the Law is not void. That is what Paul means when he says that the Law is established in us. We are believers by faith, living proof that the Law is not void. The Law did it's job in us, that we received the Savior, admitting that we cannot save ourselves.

I've never read the Vines entry before, but even it agrees with what I'm saying, not what you're saying that what does not get nullified is the law's function as the condemner of man. It just doesn't fit the immediate context of the verse which explains what he means very well.

There comes a point where you have to stop backing up in scripture until you read a verse that you can claim is in the context of the verse you're defending. I honestly think that is the case with this interpretation. Paul says we are not justified by thh law of Moses, but that does not mean the law of Moses is not to be upheld (sound familiar, church?). That point is very clear right there in the paragraph. It's not right to back up in his teaching until you get to the part about the law being what condemns us and then insisting that's what he means later in the verse you're defending. Sorry, just can't do it. The explanation is right next to what he's saying.

Was King David under the Law? Or was he in faith?

Both.

Even though he had a New Covenant salvation and relationship with God, he was still obligated to the then still binding literal law of Moses, just as Jesus was bound to that law still in literal force.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I believe by the context of this letter, that "we" in verse 31 is a reference to the natural offspring of Abraham, as can be clearly seen in the next verse after verse 31, as he states -

On the contrary, we establish the law. 1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?


Only the natural descendants of Abraham through Issac were a part of the covenant of Abraham, as well as the covenant at Sinai.

As Paul states - 1 What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? 2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.

Gentiles were under the law of sin and death just as the descendants of Abraham.


JLB

If you'll remember, this is where our last law discussion left off.

If you insist that Paul is saying in Romans 3:31 that the law of Moses is for the Jews to be upheld, and does not speak to the gentiles upholding the law, then that nullifies the abundance of his other teaching to the church that even the Jews themselves don't have to keep the literal worship laws in the law of Moses.

 

[JLB]

If you'll remember, this is where our last law discussion left off.

If you insist that Paul is saying in Romans 3:31 that the law of Moses is for the Jews to be upheld, and does not speak to the gentiles upholding the law, then that nullifies the abundance of his other teaching to the church that even the Jews themselves don't have to keep the literal worship laws in the law of Moses.

I know, that you know that is where we left off.

I know that is why you started right back there in Romans 3:31.

Would you at least consider what I have said, about the context of verse 31 and the next verse.

On the contrary, we establish the law. 1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?

Don't you agree that the "we" of verse 31, refers to the same "we" of the next verse, and the "our" in the same verse.

Don't you agree that "we" refers to the natural descendants of Abraham.


JLB

 

[JLB]

Jethro said -

Here's Vines entry about the verse:

'...the preaching of the Gospel could not "make of none effect" the moral enactments of the Law, Rom 3:31'

IOW, the new way of faith does not nullify (make of none effect) the moral requirements of the law. They are upheld by faith, not done away with.

The moral requirements were in place before the law was added, and were righteous requirements of God's law before Moses was born.

Let's examine something.-

Does Moses law require an animal to be sacrificed for a person's sin? Yes.

Is it righteous for us today to sacrifice an animal for our sin? No.

Was it righteous to sacrifice an animal for sin during the time of Moses law. Yes.

Do not steal - righteous requirement before the law was added - during the law - after the law.


We are to keep the righteous [moral] requirements that were in the law of Moses, because they were a part of the Abrahamic Covenant before the law was added.

These righteous moral laws that were seen in Moses law are to be literally obeyed.

They are not somehow "fulfilled" in us because we made a confession of faith in Christ. We are to literally not lie, not steal, not commit adultery.

However because we do these things does not mean we are righteous. Our righteousness comes from Him. Because The righteous One is in us, we are righteous.

Now, at the very same time the scripture says -

Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 1 John 3:7

But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.




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.


I find it hard to believe that you would disagree with this.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Would you at least consider what I have said, about the context of verse 31 and the next verse.

On the contrary, we establish the law. 1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?

Don't you agree that the "we" of verse 31, refers to the same "we" of the next verse, and the "our" in the same verse.

Verse 30 defines the 'we' in verse 31...

"30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised (that is the Jews) by faith and the uncircumcised (the gentiles) through faith is one.
31 Do we (Jews and gentiles justified by faith by the one God) then nullify the Law through faith (the faith that justifies Jews and gentiles alike)? May it never be! On the contrary, we (the Jews and gentiles justified by faith) establish the Law (by that faith)." (Romans 3:30-31 NASB)

Don't you agree that "we" refers to the natural descendants of Abraham.

He's starting a new thought there in verse 1 of chapter 4. In context, why shouldn't 'we' mean the natural descendants of Abraham in verse 1? Read the argument. It's from that point of view. But as I showed you the 'we' in the previous verse, verse 31, is in regard to the Jew and the gentile justified equally by faith in Christ in verse 30. So, by the context, I see no reason that the 'we' in these two thoughts has to be the same group.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Let's examine something.-

Does Moses law require an animal to be sacrificed for a person's sin? Yes.

Yes. That is the old way to satisfy the requirement for blood for sin .

Is it righteous for us today to sacrifice an animal for our sin? No.

No. Because that is the old way to satisfy the requirement for blood for sin--the way that was put away. The lawful requirement itself for sacrifice did not go away. The old, precise, codified method and timetable to do that in is what was laid aside. And replaced by the new way to satisfy the lawful requirement for blood--Christ's sacrifice, and faith in that sacrifice.

Christ's sacrifice fulfills the law of Moses for sacrifice, just as he said he came to do. But that sacrifice is what also allows the change in law he said couldn't happen until the fulfillment of the law he came to do occurred. If that doesn't make sense, read Matthew 5:17-18 again:.

17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

See? A fulfilling of the law of Moses, and a change in the law of Moses. The fulfilling is the satisfying of the fundamental requirement of the law, which in your particular example is the requirement for blood sacrifice for sin. The change in the law, which he says can't happen until that fulfilling of the law is accomplished, is the 'passing away' of the old WAY that the requirements of the law were fulfilled.

It's late, I'll look at the rest of your post tomorrow....

 

[Deborah13]

The barren tree was cumbering the ground, making it useless for the purpose of its existence, Luk 13:7; the unbelief of the Jews could not "make of none effect" the faithfulness of God, Rom 3:3; the preaching of the Gospel could not "make of none effect" the moral enactments of the Law, Rom 3:31; the Law could not make the promise of "none effect," Rom 4:14;
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2673&t=KJV

Thank you for the link. Vine's definition. An enactment of law is not the same as a requirements of that law.

Seeing that the Law is not of faith, per scripture, what are the requirements of the Law that we fulfull?

Where is the Law of Moses taught in the NT?

 

[Deborah13]

Here's Vines entry about the verse:

'...the preaching of the Gospel could not "make of none effect" the moral enactments of the Law, Rom 3:31'

IOW, the new way of faith does not nullify (make of none effect) the moral requirements of the law. They are upheld by faith, not done away with. This is what I've been saying.

If you're interested, click on 'Vines Entry' in the middle of the page of this link: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2673&t=KJV
It's an interesting read.




The element of the law that he is talking about that is not for believers is simply the way of temple, priest, and sacrifice (remember, what he's fighting against in his ministry is the contention that the worship style of the old covenant has to be retained--i.e. the Galatians, the Corinthians).

We know he's not talking about the moral parts of the law of Moses, nor even the spiritual truths the literal worship method and schedule typified, but the literal way of the law of Moses for worship and the contention that the church must adhere to them. We know that because we see the laws of Moses being taught to the church in the NT. That's hardly consistent with your interpretation of Paul's words. See what I'm saying? You're basically saying the law is for unbelievers, yet we see the Apostles teaching the requirements of the law (not the way of the law of Moses) to the church, as I've shown.

So, what is NOT for believers in regard to the law is the old way of worship, in a word the old way of dealing with sin through it's required worship method and schedule--a sin guilt that believers no longer have, but a sin guilt that the wicked people Paul lists do have. Understand? This is explained in Hebrews. The Day of Atonement--the old way of the law of Moses for dealing with sin--is not for those who have been justified through the new way of faith in Christ.



I've never read the Vines entry before, but even it agrees with what I'm saying, not what you're saying that what does not get nullified is the law's function as the condemner of man. It just doesn't fit the immediate context of the verse which explains what he means very well.

There comes a point where you have to stop backing up in scripture until you read a verse that you can claim is in the context of the verse you're defending. I honestly think that is the case with this interpretation. Paul says we are not justified by thh law of Moses, but that does not mean the law of Moses is not to be upheld (sound familiar, church?). That point is very clear right there in the paragraph. It's not right to back up in his teaching until you get to the part about the law being what condemns us and then insisting that's what he means later in the verse you're defending. Sorry, just can't do it. The explanation is right next to what he's saying.





Both.

Even though he had a New Covenant salvation and relationship with God, he was still obligated to the then still binding literal law of Moses, just as Jesus was bound to that law still in literal force.

How was David under both law and grace? For justification? For sanctification?

Please explain.

 

[agua.]

How was David under both law and grace? For justification? For sanctification?

Please explain.

David lived within the constraints of the Mosaic Law ( or was supposed to ) but also found grace in God's eye as a faithful believer.

Rom 4:6-8 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: (7) "Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. (8) Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count against them."