“The Law of Sin”

[Deborah13]

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

I don't agree.
The moral laws of God existed before Abraham.

 

[Deborah13]

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."

Hi agua,
Was he under the Law for justification? sanctification?

 

[agua.]

Hi agua,
Was he under the Law for justification? sanctification?

Gday Deborah,

No one was justified or sanctified by the law. David was bound by the Mosaic laws but these laws didn't justify him; only faith can do that.

Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Sanctification comes through sacrifice and the "blood of bulls and goats" only cleaned temporarily and externally.

Heb 9:13-14 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. (14) How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

So the law neither justifies or sanctifies imo.

 

[Deborah13]

Gday Deborah,

No one was justified or sanctified by the law. David was bound by the Mosaic laws but these laws didn't justify him; only faith can do that.

Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Sanctification comes through sacrifice and the "blood of bulls and goats" only cleaned temporarily and externally.

Heb 9:13-14 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. (14) How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

So the law neither justifies or sanctifies imo.

We are in agreement. The Law could not/cannot justify or sanctify in the OT or the NT.

The faith of the OT saints was truly amazing to me. We cannot see, in the flesh, the Lord right now but we know He came and His works but they had no written record of anyone actually seeing Him in the flesh or knowing His works. They had prophecies but that was all and yet they had great faith.

Blessings

 

[agua.]

We are in agreement. The Law could not/cannot justify or sanctify in the OT or the NT.

The faith of the OT saints was truly amazing to me. We cannot see, in the flesh, the Lord right now but we know He came and His works but they had no written record of anyone actually seeing Him in the flesh or knowing His works. They had prophecies but that was all and yet they had great faith.

Blessings

Yeah they were mighty men and women of God saved by grace through faith. They did have written record of God's miraculous feats though and lived amid many of them. David knew who gave him Goliath's head for instance.

 

[JLB]

I don't agree.
The moral laws of God existed before Abraham.

Deb, could you pick the phrase in my post that you don't agree with.

I would like to see how my wording of things in my post's can be misconstrued.

I certainly believe the law of God was from before Abraham.


Thanks JLB

 

[JLB]

Jethro said -

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)

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? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." Galatians 3:28-4:3

Verse 1 is not a new thought, Paul is still contrasting the law with faith.

Here is a simple question.

Were uncircumcised gentiles under the law of Moses and required to keep Moses law.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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

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

The gospel of justification by faith does not remove the force of the moral requirements of the law. Even though the major problem of Paul's day was the insistence that one keep the ceremonial laws within the law of Moses, this shows us that the erroneous argument that 'because justification is not by works of the law we don't have to do what the law requires' (the popular argument today) was circulating at that time, too. That's why James addresses the point, too, apparently.

Seeing that the Law is not of faith, per scripture...

This is what most Christians do. They think that Paul says obeying the law is not of faith. What is not of faith is obeying the law to be justified. The way of works of the law to be justified has nothing to do whatsoever with being justified by faith. They are diametrically opposed to each other. Completely and utterly. That is what that verse means.

...what are the requirements of the Law that we fulfull?

Where is the Law of Moses taught in the NT?

Just to be clear: The requirements of the law of Moses are taught in the NT, not the method (the way) of the law of Moses.

James 1,2; 1 Corinthians 5; Hebrews 9,10, Hebrews 4 are all places I've shared in this thread, and other threads that teach the fulfillment of the law. No time to spell them out this morning. Brain surgeries are stacking up.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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.

This is what David says after being forgiven his debt of adultery (unforgivable under the law):

"Then bulls will be sacrificed on your altar..." (Psalm 51?)

My paraphrase...

 

[Deborah13]

The gospel of justification by faith does not remove the force of the moral requirements of the law. Even though the major problem of Paul's day was the insistence that one keep the ceremonial laws within the law of Moses, this shows us that the erroneous argument that 'because justification is not by works of the law we don't have to do what the law requires' (the popular argument today) was circulating at that time, too. That's why James addresses the point, too, apparently.

Just to be clear: The requirements of the law of Moses are taught in the NT, not the method (the way) of the law of Moses.

James 1,2; 1 Corinthians 5; Hebrews 9,10, Hebrews 4 are all places I've shared in this thread, and other threads that teach the fulfillment of the law. No time to spell them out this morning. Brain surgeries are stacking up.

The is only one requirement of the Law of Moses.
In fact, in the Greek the word translated 'righteousness' in the KJV and 'requirement' in the NASB is a singular noun, not plural. The requirement of the Law is perfection, perfectly doing the Law.
What does your version of the Bible actually say, requirement or plural requirements?

James 2 - KJV -
Jas 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Jas 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

This is what most Christians do. They think that Paul says obeying the law is not of faith. What is not of faith is obeying the law to be justified. The way of works of the law to be justified has nothing to do whatsoever with being justified by faith. They are diametrically opposed to each other. Completely and utterly. That is what that verse means.

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

 

[Deborah13]

This is what David says after being forgiven his debt of adultery (unforgivable under the law):

"Then bulls will be sacrificed on your altar..." (Psalm 51?)

My paraphrase...

So how was David justified? How was he sanctified?

 

[JLB]

The is only one requirement of the Law of Moses.
In fact, in the Greek the word translated 'righteousness' in the KJV and 'requirement' in the NASB is a singular noun, not plural. The requirement of the Law is perfection, perfectly doing the Law.
What does your version of the Bible actually say, requirement or plural requirements?

James 2 - KJV -
Jas 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Jas 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.



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

The requirement is obedience to do all that is written in the law and continue in that obedience.

Perfect Obedience.

 

[Deborah13]

This is what David says after being forgiven his debt of adultery (unforgivable under the law):

"Then bulls will be sacrificed on your altar..." (Psalm 51?)

My paraphrase...

David wasn't saying that he was offering a bull as a sacrifice. Although he may have, there is no scripture that I know of that says that, but there may be one.
Actually what he said was that only if one has a contrite heart will God be pleased with an offering of the bull.

Psa 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
Psa 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Psa 51:11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
Psa 51:12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.
Psa 51:13 Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.
Psa 51:18 Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem.
Psa 51:19 Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.

This Psalm is a perfect picture of the difference between Law and by grace through faith.
The offerings of bulls was to be just an outward sign of what was in the repentant heart.
Just like water baptism is an outward sign of the conversion of the heart turned toward God.

 

[Deborah13]

The requirement is obedience to do all that is written in the law and continue in that obedience.

Perfect Obedience.

Exactly. That is the requirement of the Law, if one does not do that the Law demands death.
Paul said that in the Law he died.

 

[Sparkey]

Interjecting a thought from a different train here: The sacrifice of a bull is indeed a sacrifice. The bull represented potential prosperity; a growing herd of cattle. There is an aspect of punishment in the sacrifice that was required -- death was required, even though it was the death of a valuable animal and not the death of the offender.

The requirement of the law includes punishment. Depriving not only of the bull but also of the fruits (calves and enlarged herds) that would come from the bull. God was teaching man that sin itself was the cause of our troubles. We needed to learn about justice and punishment and the larger picture so that we could come to understand how God is good and mixes in Mercy to all of His judgments, preferring to sacrifice of Himself before or instead of exacting the full measurement of that which the law requires.

"None know the Father save the Son." We needed Jesus to show us who God is. There is a truth about justice and balancing the scales that is superseded by the Goodness of God, and without Jesus we would not have known, would not have seen who He is. Even now, our knowing Him depends on us being the good soil, on hearing the word and on acting on it and dying to self.

 

[JLB]

Interjecting a thought from a different train here: The sacrifice of a bull is indeed a sacrifice. The bull represented potential prosperity; a growing herd of cattle. There is an aspect of punishment in the sacrifice that was required -- death was required, even though it was the death of a valuable animal and not the death of the offender.

The requirement of the law includes punishment. Depriving not only of the bull but also of the fruits (calves and enlarged herds) that would come from the bull. God was teaching man that sin itself was the cause of our troubles. We needed to learn about justice and punishment and the larger picture so that we could come to understand how God is good and mixes in Mercy to all of His judgments, preferring to sacrifice of Himself before or instead of exacting the full measurement of that which the law requires.

"None know the Father save the Son." We needed Jesus to show us who God is. There is a truth about justice and balancing the scales that is superseded by the Goodness of God, and without Jesus we would not have known, would not have seen who He is. Even now, our knowing Him depends on us being the good soil, on hearing the word and on acting on it and dying to self.

Good point Sparrow.

We can learn so much from these perspectives in the law of Moses.

The richness and the depth of the shadows and types is unsearchable.

Many of these are taught in the New Testament, however much is left to us to search out and mine for ourselves.

Because we are not under the law does not mean we stop learning from the beautiful treasures within.

All scripture is profitable...

JLB

 

[farouk]

The requirement is obedience to do all that is written in the law and continue in that obedience.

Perfect Obedience.

Only the Lord Jesus could fulfil it.

Blessings.

 

[Deborah13]

Interjecting a thought from a different train here: The sacrifice of a bull is indeed a sacrifice. The bull represented potential prosperity; a growing herd of cattle. There is an aspect of punishment in the sacrifice that was required -- death was required, even though it was the death of a valuable animal and not the death of the offender.

The requirement of the law includes punishment. Depriving not only of the bull but also of the fruits (calves and enlarged herds) that would come from the bull. God was teaching man that sin itself was the cause of our troubles. We needed to learn about justice and punishment and the larger picture so that we could come to understand how God is good and mixes in Mercy to all of His judgments, preferring to sacrifice of Himself before or instead of exacting the full measurement of that which the law requires.

"None know the Father save the Son." We needed Jesus to show us who God is. There is a truth about justice and balancing the scales that is superseded by the Goodness of God, and without Jesus we would not have known, would not have seen who He is. Even now, our knowing Him depends on us being the good soil, on hearing the word and on acting on it and dying to self.

Thanks, all very good points. So much to learn.....

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jethro said -

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)


28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

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.

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? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." Galatians 3:28-4:3

Verse 1 is not a new thought, Paul is still contrasting the law with faith.

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.

Here is a simple question.

Were uncircumcised gentiles under the law of Moses and required to keep Moses law.

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 to be in, and remain in, the covenant with Abraham--regardless of descent--was suddenly no longer an 'everlasting covenant' for any and all people in the covenant of Abraham when this same requirement for circumcision 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.

Circumcision was for ALL males, native or foreign, who served in the Abrahamic covenant. The law of Moses did not change that. It can't. That's not allowed.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The is only one requirement of the Law of Moses.
In fact, in the Greek the word translated 'righteousness' in the KJV and 'requirement' in the NASB is a singular noun, not plural.

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.

The requirement of the Law is perfection, perfectly doing 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.

What does your version of the Bible actually say, requirement or plural requirements?

"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....