“The Law of Sin”

[JLB]

Our conversation has nothing to do with the law as a way to be justified. Nothing. That issue....well....it's not even an issue. No argument being made in any way shape or form that the law somehow makes a person righteous. Messianic Christian's don't even breathe a whisper towards that argument.



No, no. It's a new thought in regard to 'we'. Obviously, the 'we' in verse 1 of chapter Romans 4 immediately following verse 31 of chapter 3 means those of natural descent from Abraham. It says that. But it's clear he's launching into a new thought, a new angle on the topic of justification by faith.

Back to verses 30 and 31....I showed you he's plainly saying both Jews and gentiles are justified together by faith. No change of thought between verse 30 and 31, so how is it that 'we' can only mean the 'Jewish' half of 'we'? He's just been speaking of them as one.

If 'we' in verse 31 only means Jews, then your doctrine has to explain why believing Jews are still 'under the law' (as your doctrine defines that), and gentiles aren't--even though Paul just got done saying both are equally justified by the same God through faith.

If your doctrine insists Jews are 'under the law', then suddenly pages of NT teaching about the 'end of the law' (and what that actually means--not what the church thinks it means) is now only applicable to the gentiles. Then we have an even bigger mess of playing the 'who does the law apply to?' game than we had before sorting out pages of pages of we's and who's and so on.




Circumcision was for any male servant born into the household of Abraham, or bought from a foreigner outside the household of Abraham:

"10 This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.11 And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.12 And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants.13 A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant." (Genesis 17:10-13 NASB)

Your doctrine has to explain how this requirement for all servants regardless of descent to be in, and remain in, the covenant with Abraham was suddenly no longer an 'everlasting covenant' for any and all people in the covenant of Abraham when this same requirement got written down and included in the covenant of law. You can see the determining factor is if you are a servant of the covenant or not, not who your natural mother and father are.

Please don't try to explain your position.

Please, just answer the simple question.

Were uncircumcised gentiles obligated to uphold the law of Moses? [ By saying the law of Moses that means all the law of Moses ]

The question does not regard, if there were exceptions to those who were to be circumcised in the house of Abraham.

Abraham and his house were not under the law of Moses.


JLB



Just a simple yes or no.

I am trying to really understand where you are coming from.

 

[JLB]

There is no such thing, grammatically, as 'righteousnesses'. Righteousness is seen many aspects of righteous works, not just one. It can be summarized in one thing, but as Paul shows us, that one thing actually represents many righteous things:

"9 For this, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:9-10 NASB)

See? The righteousness of the law is not just a single command. But righteousness can be upheld through one command, but to say righteousness is a single command is hardly true at all and unBiblical. Righteousness is the upholding of all the law of Moses (as even you are getting ready to say). In this New Covenant we satisfy the righteousness of the law--the righteous requirements of the law--through the new way of faith, faith expressing itself through love:

"6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love." (Galatians 5:6 NASB)

Faith upholds many 'righteousnesses' (righteous requirements) of the law.

No sir. Faith in Jesus Christ for salvation does not exclude the literal requirement, from not stealing, or lying, or committing adultery. Which was God's law before Moses.

... that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

 

[Deborah13]

There is no such thing, grammatically, as 'righteousnesses'. Righteousness is seen many aspects of righteous works, not just one. It can be summarized in one thing, but as Paul shows us, that one thing actually represents many righteous things:

"9 For this, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:9-10 NASB)

See? The righteousness of the law is not just a single command. But righteousness can be upheld through one command, but to say righteousness is a single command is hardly true at all and unBiblical. Righteousness is the upholding of all the law of Moses (as even you are getting ready to say). In this New Covenant we satisfy the righteousness of the law--the righteous requirements of the law--through the new way of faith, faith expressing itself through love:

"6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love." (Galatians 5:6 NASB)

Faith upholds many 'righteousnesses' (righteous requirements) of the law.



That's the argument for those who want to be justified by the law.

In Christ, the perfection of righteousness is Christ's right standing with God. But as Paul explains that right standing then in turn upholds the righteous acts required by the law (in the new way, not the old way). And we spend a lifetime getting better and better at it. So, you see the perfection card is to be played against those who think justification comes by the law, not for those who are justified in Christ who then grow up into perfection revealed to us in the law.



"26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?" (Romans 2:26 NASB)

As I've shown you, 'requirements of the Law', and 'righteousness of the law' are the same thing and represents many 'righteousnesses'. It can easily be read '...if the uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law...' It's like our word 'data', which is a plurality of information, but which speaks of that plurality as a single whole. In programming you say 'data element' when you mean just one single bit or part of the sum total of all the parts called 'data'.

Back to the brain surgeries....

If we look at Luke it appears that commandments and requirements or two different things?
NASB
Luke 1:6
They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.

In this verse I see two things. Obviously they were not sinless but were found to be blameless. If the commandments and requirements are two different things, it makes me think of Psalms 51 and what David said about God not desiring sacrifice unless it came from a repentant heart.
Taking that into consideration, it seems that in order for there to be a true fulfillment of the Law of Moses that would have to include a repentant heart, not just an outward show of obedience. Which of coarse would only come by faith and grace.

NASB
Romans 8:3-4
For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

So this is the verse I was referring to where requirement is singular in the Greek. So putting that together with the context of Luke in talking about Johns parents and what David says in Psalms 51 Maybe this verse is not referring to the perfection demanded by the Law (James)
but to Faith, which was also required in order to be found blameless. Job is another good example of this even before the Law of Moses.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

"obeying the law is not of faith."
I don't know any Christian that believes that including the grace preachers I listen to and certainly is not their interpretation of that verse. So maybe it is your misunderstanding of what we are saying. It is faith (Jesus in me) is the only way that I can obey God.

('way' in your quote emboldened by me)

This is what I've been saying. Christ, and faith Christ, is the new WAY to uphold the righteousness of the law. As opposed to the old WAY the requirements of the law were kept. How some continually miss this plainly stated argument in my doctrine over and over and over again is beyond my comprehension.

The point is, Deborah, this new way of serving God--through Christ, and faith in Christ (I word it that way for an important reason)--does not abolish the law of Moses (Jesus plainly said he did not come to do that).

"6 But now we have been released from the Law (the authority of the law to keep us bound to sinful flesh--see context), having died to that by which we were bound (that is, bound to the law which binds a person to sinful flesh while sinful flesh is still alive--see context), so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter." (Romans 7:6 NASB)

But this new way of serving God does allow us to set aside that old 'way' of serving God through the power of the flesh alone, and through elemental types and shadows of the law, but it does not do away with the righteousness requirements of the law itself. Only the old way those righteous requirements got upheld then.

The Law is not of faith says to me, the Law cannot produce right living, faith by (the Spirit) produces right living.

IOW, the way of law cannot justify you (you'd have to keep the law perfectly for that to be true). That's the point of my doctrine, but made in a round-a-bout kind of way by you.

The way of the letter of the law is opposed to the new way of faith, a new way which does both, justifies a person, and enables them to actually live out the righteousness of God--the righteousness of God revealed in the law.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So how was David justified? How was he sanctified?

By faith in God's forgiveness that was not available to him under the law.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

No sir. Faith in Jesus Christ for salvation does not exclude the literal requirement, from not stealing, or lying, or committing adultery. Which was God's law before Moses.

... that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

I guess you meant to attach this to someone else's quote because it has nothing to do with what I said in that quote.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

NASB
Romans 8:3-4
For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

So this is the verse I was referring to where requirement is singular in the Greek. So putting that together with the context of Luke in talking about Johns parents and what David says in Psalms 51 Maybe this verse is not referring to the perfection demanded by the Law (James)
but to Faith, which was also required in order to be found blameless. Job is another good example of this even before the Law of Moses.

'Requirement of the law' in this verse means 'all righteousness' if I'm not mistaken.

I don't know how 'all righteousness' can't mean all the requirements of the law. It's a silly argument.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17 NASB)

Explain how the law 'goes away' but does not get abolished. My doctrine explains that. The opposing doctrine in this thread does not.

 

[JLB]

17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17 NASB)

Explain how the law 'goes away' but does not get abolished. My doctrine explains that. The opposing doctrine in this thread does not.

First of all I have not used the word "abolished".

The language that is being used here was clearly understood in that day as being a Rabbinical argument.

If one was to misinterpret the law, it was said he was guilty of abolishing the law.

If one was to interpret the law correctly, it was said he has fulfilled the law.


In our highly scrutinized discussion, I use the language of the scriptures the chapter and verse we are discussing.

You on the other hand, have chosen to take liberty with God's Word, like adding the word "way" to a scripture to change its meaning to validate your interpretation of the law.

In Jesus' day, if you added even a jot or a tittle, let alone add a word to the scripture, then you yourself would charged with "abolishing" the law.

JLB

 

[JLB]

'Requirement of the law' in this verse means 'all righteousness' if I'm not mistaken.

I don't know how 'all righteousness' can't mean all the requirements of the law. It's a silly argument.

All the law meant every single one, all the sacrifices, all the Sabbath requirements...

 

[Deborah13]

('way' in your quote emboldened by me)

WELL.... you have no idea how hard I have been trying to stay a'way' from that word 'way'!

This is what I've been saying. Christ, and faith Christ, is the new WAY to uphold the righteousness of the law. As opposed to the old WAY the requirements of the law were kept. How some continually miss this plainly stated argument in my doctrine over and over and over again is beyond my comprehension.

Well, you may think we all didn't understand. I always heard you saying that faith in Christ is what saves us. I think you also believe that faith and grace empowers us to do the things that are pleasing to God. I have always heard that.

The point is, Deborah, this new way of serving God--through Christ, and faith in Christ (I word it that way for an important reason)--does not abolish the law of Moses (Jesus plainly said he did not come to do that).

"6 But now we have been released from the Law (the authority of the law to keep us bound to sinful flesh--see context), having died to that by which we were bound (that is, bound to the law which binds a person to sinful flesh while sinful flesh is still alive--see context), so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter." (Romans 7:6 NASB)

But this new way of serving God does allow us to set aside that old 'way' of serving God through the power of the flesh alone, and through elemental types and shadows of the law, but it does not do away with the righteousness requirements of the law itself. Only the old way those righteous requirements got upheld then.

To me they were never upheld, done, accomplished by doings and don't doings. Anyone who tried to do that failed even in the OT. The Law never changed anyone internally, just on the outside and that was only temporary. Remember the discussion Jesus had with the Pharisees. He told them to wash the inside of the cup, what the Law can never do.

IOW, the way of law cannot justify you (you'd have to keep the law perfectly for that to be true). That's the point of my doctrine, but made in a round-a-bout kind of way by you.

The way of the letter of the law is opposed to the new way of faith, which does both, justifies a person, and enables them to actually live out the righteousness of God.

This is where we see it differently. I don't see a 'new' way of faith. David was both justified and sanctified by faith and grace, not the Law. As were the prophets, Abraham,Ruth, Boaz, etc. etc.
They were looking forward by faith (to the coming of a Savior), we look backward by faith (to the cross), to look forward for more yet to come.
I see God's love in the laws, in Moses' Law, in His faith, grace, and mercy, not just in the NT but in the OT, too. I didn't get to that place by obeying laws, I got there by His grace and mercy towards me.

The righteousness of God revealed in the law.

Romans 3:21-24 NASB
21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;

What's different? How God's righteousness is manifested.... in Jesus Christ.

 

[Deborah13]

By faith in God's forgiveness that was not available to him under the law.

I believe that God forgave him then, just like He did the other OT saints, but he had to wait for his redemption provided by the perfect sacrifice, Jesus Christ.
Covenants are like legal contracts, they must be fulfilled.
Just like us he owed a debt he could not pay.

 

[Deborah13]

'Requirement of the law' in this verse means 'all righteousness' if I'm not mistaken.

I don't know how 'all righteousness' can't mean all the requirements of the law. It's a silly argument.

Please look again. I quoted from the NASB, the version you use. It says, 'the requirement'. I looked it up in the Greek, it is singular, one requirement. James explains the requirement of the Law. It is obeying every jot and tittle or it has been broken.

 

[JLB]

I guess you meant to attach this to someone else's quote because it has nothing to do with what I said in that quote.

No sir. I was responding to your post.

In this New Covenant we satisfy the righteousness of the law--the righteous requirements of the law--through the new way of faith, faith expressing itself through love

By this statement I can only conclude that you are advocating that: the "new way"of faith has replaced the requirement to obey the Ten Commandments.

Faith is not the new way, it has been the only way, and will continue to be the only way.

No sir. Faith in Jesus Christ for salvation does not exclude the literal requirement, from not stealing, or lying, or committing adultery. Which was God's law before Moses.

... that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

The righteous requirement is fulfilled when we walk according to the Spirit.

JLB

 

[netchaplain]

The righteous requirement is fulfilled when we walk according to the Spirit.
JLB

Hi JLB - I hope you don't mine me sharing something with you from Romans 8:4 concerning what I believe is the meaning of "the righteousness of the law." I don't think this is referring to the doing of the law is the righteousness of the law, but is the right of God to condemn to death those who do not live by it then, in holiness and sinlessness, which only Jesus did.

Therefore the law did not require man to live by it in sinlessness, because it's not possible. The modern translations use the phrase "the righteous requirement of the law," which is not to mean the possibility of man to keep it perfectly, but it assumes that man cannot do this and therefore the requirement of the law, which is a righteous requirement, is death for disobedience. This confirms "the law of sin," which is defined as, "the soul that sinneth, it shall die," and this is the requirement of the law, not an impossible obedience to it.

The other significance here is that Jesus' perfect sinless obedience to the law was not so that His obedience to it could be attributed to us, because this cannot produce remission of sin. The atonement for remission came, not from His obedience to the law, but from His "condemning sin in the flesh," by taking on the sin and dying with it on Him, as the Father "made Him out to be sin for us" (2 Cor 5:21).

Therefore, His obedience was for Himself, so He would qualify for the perfect, sinless sacrificial atonement. It's the atonement which is for our sins, not anything concerning the law--that was for Christ.

 

[JLB]

Hi JLB - I hope you don't mine me sharing something with you from Romans 8:4 concerning what I believe is the meaning of "the righteousness of the law." I don't think this is referring to the doing of the law is the righteousness of the law, but is the right of God to condemn to death those who do not live by it then, in holiness and sinlessness, which only Jesus did.

Therefore the law did not require man to live by it in sinlessness, because it's not possible. The modern translations use the phrase "the righteous requirement of the law," which is not to mean the possibility of man to keep it perfectly, but it assumes that man cannot do this and therefore the requirement of the law, which is a righteous requirement, is death for disobedience. This confirms "the law of sin," which is defined as, "the soul that sinneth, it shall die," and this is the requirement of the law, not an impossible obedience to it.

The other significance here is that Jesus' perfect sinless obedience to the law was not so that His obedience to it could be attributed to us, because this cannot produce remission of sin. The atonement for remission came, not from His obedience to the law, but from His "condemning sin in the flesh," by taking on the sin and dying with it on Him, as the Father "made Him out to be sin for us" (2 Cor 5:21).

Therefore, His obedience was for Himself, so He would qualify for the perfect, sinless sacrificial atonement. It's the atonement which is for our sins, not anything concerning the law--that was for Christ.

Jesus is our example.

He said what He heard from His Father.

He did what He saw His Father do.

Jesus was led by The Spirit.

He raised the dead.

He cast out devils.

He healed the sick.

He preached the kingdom of God.

None of which had anything to do with the law of Moses.

JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If one was to interpret the law correctly, it was said he has fulfilled the law.

Just knowing how to interpret a law hardly means you kept, fulfilled, satisfied the requirement of that law. But I can see how the modern church could accept that belief.

In our highly scrutinized discussion, I use the language of the scriptures the chapter and verse we are discussing.

You on the other hand, have chosen to take liberty with God's Word, like adding the word "way" to a scripture to change its meaning to validate your interpretation of the law.

(Careful. Talk about my doctrine, not me. Don't address me directly. That's the safest way to abide by the rules of this forum. But anyway...)

"6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter." (Romans 7:6 NASB)

See? Two distinct 'ways' to serve. The NIV even says it using the word 'way'.

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

In Jesus' day, if you added even a jot or a tittle, let alone add a word to the scripture, then you yourself would charged with "abolishing" the law.

Yes, because doing that may cause the law to not be satisfied.

Abusing the law, so that in the end it does not get upheld, is the same as doing violence to it...throwing it down underfoot and disrespecting it as indicated by one's failure to satisfy it. Today, we see the way this works in how cults, especially, will move an accepted placement of a comma, for example, to change the meaning of a verse to support their pre-determined doctrine.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

All the law meant every single one, all the sacrifices, all the Sabbath requirements...

Christ, and faith in him satisfies all God's lawful requirements.

 

[JLB]

Just knowing how to interpret a law hardly means you kept, fulfilled, satisfied the requirement of that law. But I can see how the modern church could accept that belief.

This is what was meant in that day when two Rabbis would discuss the law.

Abolish. Misinterpret the law so as to bring forth that which was unrighteous from God's perspective.

Fulfill. - interpret correctly. Bring forth from the law, that which was right from God's perspective.

To add or to take away from God's law is sin.

JLB

 

[JLB]

Christ, and faith in him satisfies all God's lawful requirements.

Faith in Christ is how our sins are forgiven, so that we can walk in relationship with Him.

Walking with Him in the light, is how our sins continue to be forgiven.

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. Romans 8:1

JLB