Is the Law God gave through Moses still in effect today???

[lou11]

As gentile I am not subject to the law of Moses.

Where do you get this? Possibly from some books on theology but not from Scripture. When Christ said that those that obey will be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, was he speaking of Jews only? Isn't the kingdom of heaven only for born-again Christians?

I don't read books on theology lou but I'm happy to listen to what scripture says.

Would you mind pointing me to the scripture you are referring to - 'when Christ said that those that obey will be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven'.

Blessings

Matthew 5:
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

[lou11]

Frankly I believe that you had no intention of actually listening to anyones evidence here and this particular topic isnt worth two weeks bickering with you about it since its clear you have made up your mind even with so much scripture that rips your views to shreds.

With that Ill bid ya fare well and let ya argue your case with everyone else.

I'm sorry you have come to this conclusion but I can see why. To you the passages you cited are absolutely and totally conclusive that the law is no longer in force. But you haven't addressed my original question regarding what Christ meant in the Matthew 5 passage. Until you do, your interpretation of all the citations you listed is under suspicion. We cannot discount any statement in Scripture merely because other passages seem to contradict it. We need to find an interpretation that satisfies all the relevant passages.

I gave you such an interpretation: each of the passages you listed refers to the ceremonial components of the law, not the whole law. This interpretation satisfies the whole of Scripture, not just some of the passages.

You accuse me of not listening to you but it is you that refuses to listen. If you could put aside your prejudices and think through the issue, I think you might surprise yourself.

 

[lou11]

It is the lack of a law that has taken the impetus out of Christianity and relegated it to a back seat in the world scene.

There is no lack of a "law" in Christianity - what there is a lack of the Torah, the Law of Moses. In fact, Paul at several places asserts that there is indeed a "law" that the Christian is to follow:

Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law

No time to explain, but when Paul refers upholding the “lawâ€Â, he is not referring to the written code of Torah, but to something else. And then there is this:

For the law of the Spirit of life in (E)Christ Jesus (F)has set you free from the law of sin and of death.

Paul’s view of the law is complex, but I think this much is clear - he believes the written code of the Torah has been abolished. Another “Torah†has taken its place. Perhaps more about that later.

We are set "free from the law of sin and death" in the sense that Christ has satisfied the penalty of our sin and so the law no longer condemns us. This does not deny the law; rather, it upholds the law! Christ had to physically die on the cross precisely because the law is still in force.

 

[follower of Christ]

Im sorry, guy, but Ive given the conclusive proof that we are no longer under law.
If you feel to be like the Galatians were whom Paul chastised for running back to the law, you have a great time with that.
You are running with ONE misunderstood verse and interpreting ALL the rest by that verse that many argue about its intent BECAUSE of what the REST of the evidence proves.
Im not wasting any more time with you in the matter. The READERS of this thread can see the overwhelming evidence provided in my previous posts and discern the matter for themselves.

There are ten thousand false, lying doctrines out there and MOST of them are based on perversions of one or two verses.

You have a very nice day


for you READERS please see my previous posts to see the CLEAR evidence that we are no longer under the law.....
Here are the links...
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=38637#p465282
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=38637#p465409
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=38637#p465411
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=38637#p465416
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=38637#p465458

I'm sorry you have come to this conclusion but I can see why. To you the passages you cited are absolutely and totally conclusive that the law is no longer in force. But you haven't addressed my original question regarding what Christ meant in the Matthew 5 passage. Until you do, your interpretation of all the citations you listed is under suspicion. We cannot discount any statement in Scripture merely because other passages seem to contradict it. We need to find an interpretation that satisfies all the relevant passages.

I gave you such an interpretation: each of the passages you listed refers to the ceremonial components of the law, not the whole law. This interpretation satisfies the whole of Scripture, not just some of the passages.

You accuse me of not listening to you but it is you that refuses to listen. If you could put aside your prejudices and think through the issue, I think you might surprise yourself.

 

[lou11]

m sorry, guy, but Ive given the conclusive proof that we are no longer under law
.

Your "conclusive proof" does not say what law we are no longer under. I maintain that it is the ceremonial law these verses refer to. I've said this several times and, instead of addressing my point, all you do is keep repeating the verses.

If you feel to be like the Galatians were whom Paul chastised for running back to the law, you have a great time with that.

The problem the Galatians had was related to circumcision. Paul insisted that Christians did not need to be circumcised. This also relates to the ceremonial law.

You are running with ONE misunderstood verse and interpreting ALL the rest by that verse that many argue about its intent BECAUSE of what the REST of the evidence proves.

I've repeatedly asked you to tell me what you believe my "misunderstood" verse means. Give me a reasonable explanation and I'll desist.

Im not wasting any more time with you in the matter. The READERS of this thread can see the overwhelming evidence provided in my previous posts and discern the matter for themselves.

I don't see this as a waste of time. We are told to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

 

[follower of Christ]

Apparently you dont take the hint when someone says they arent interested

Your "conclusive proof" does not say what law we are no longer under.

Whew...yeah...it does....and apparently youre having a VERY hard time reading it.
here, maybe THIS will be plain enough for you since you seem to need to be spoon fed here...

For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under Law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under Law, but under grace? Let it not be!
(Rom 6:14-15 MKJV)

But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
(Gal 5:18 MKJV)

So what excuse will you come up with for those ? ARe they not clear enough ?
Paul doesnt distinguish that we arent under PART of the law, Im afraid, so lets be honest about what IS said.

I maintain that it is the ceremonial law these verses refer to.

Which refutes your own position since 'not one jot or tittle' supposedly would pass.
You seem to be purposefully ignoring the part of your pet passage there that says;

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
(Mat 5:19 KJV)

According the the PLAIN wording there we see that there is NO such distinction as you are trying to claim but even the LEAST breach of the law is an offense.

I've said this several times and, instead of addressing my point, all you do is keep repeating the verses.

You have no point to begin with given what your cited passage states.
And you apparently cannot seem to accept the fact that MANY real scholars of scripture CANNOT AGREE upon the INTENT of your favorite verse there in Matthew. It intent is argued among the best and most learned, but you seem to think you have figured it out and therefore are authorized to dismiss a HUGE amount of evidence that destroys YOUR interpretation of said passage.

 

[follower of Christ]

The problem the Galatians had was related to circumcision. Paul insisted that Christians did not need to be circumcised. This also relates to the ceremonial law.

No, the Galatians were running back into the law for justification.
Circumcision wasnt the problem, it was a symptom of the problem.

I don't see this as a waste of time. We are told to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

And thats not whats going on here.
You very clearly have no intent of accepting or considering anything that doesnt line up with your agenda here.
Now, thats not wrong in and of itself....*IF* your agenda is aligned with Gods word as a whole.
The problem is that it isnt as we've proven already and you dont want to see.

 

[follower of Christ]

And contrary to this view that we are only under PART of the law, Paul says if we seek justification by the law by being circumcised we are indebted to keep the WHOLE law....not just parts of it.

And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
(Gal 5:3 EMTV)

We are not UNDER law and we cannot be justified BY the law...

knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; because no flesh shall be justified by the works of the law.
(Gal 2:16 EMTV)

FAITH is what justifies us.
FAITH was the laws purpose...to bring us TO faith...

Therefore the law has become our custodian, leading us to Christ, so that we might be justified by faith.
But after faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian.
(Gal 3:19-25 EMTV)

We are NO LONGER UNDER the law.

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all the things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." But that no one is justified by the law before God is evident, for "The just shall live by faith."
But the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them."
(Gal 3:10-12 EMTV)

The law is not of faith...

You have become estranged from Christ, you who are justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
(Gal 5:4 EMTV)

 

[lou11]

And contrary to this view that we are only under PART of the law, Paul says if we seek justification by the law by being circumcised we are indebted to keep the WHOLE law....not just parts of it.

And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.
(Gal 5:3 EMTV)

We are not UNDER law and we cannot be justified BY the law...
[quote:2kg1i7oq]knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; because no flesh shall be justified by the works of the law.
(Gal 2:16 EMTV)

FAITH is what justifies us.
FAITH was the laws purpose...to bring us TO faith...

Therefore the law has become our custodian, leading us to Christ, so that we might be justified by faith.
But after faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian.
(Gal 3:19-25 EMTV)

We are NO LONGER UNDER the law.

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all the things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." But that no one is justified by the law before God is evident, for "The just shall live by faith."
But the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them."
(Gal 3:10-12 EMTV)

The law is not of faith...

You have become estranged from Christ, you who are justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
(Gal 5:4 EMTV)

[/quote:2kg1i7oq]

I'm impressed with the volume of resources you seem to have at your fingertips. But you do me an injustice when you imply that I believe one can be justified by the law. Justification is by faith alone. The law defines righteousness and sin. It is not the way of justification but it is the way of life for the believer.

I don't have your resources but here are a few more (by no means all) passages that support my position on the law.

Romans 2: 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Notice here that faith does not abolish the law; it remains in force; the law is established through faith.

Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. 15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

To be under grace is to be forgiven of the infraction of the law. We are not under the law, not because the law is abolished but because Christ bore the penalty required by the law in our place. The law itself still stands, otherwise Christ would not have needed to die for us.

Paul then asks: does this give us a license to sin? His answer, that we must not sin, puts us right back to the law wherein lies the definition of sin.

Romans 7: 4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 What shall we say then? is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Paul says here that we are dead to the law, that we have been delivered from it. We are delivered from it's consequences through Christ's atoning death. Paul does not say that the law itself is dead or abolished. It shows us our sin and our inability to do what is right. Without the law we cannot even see our own sin; with the law, "sin revived and I died." This "holy...just, and good" law has never been rescinded.

Romans 8: 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Here we see it is the carnal (unbelieving) mind that operates outside the law. By implication, believers are subject to the law, subject in the sense that they willingly obey the commandments contained therein.

Romans 13: 8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Paul enjoins us to love one another which he says is the fulfilling of the law. The law then is the definition of what it is that constitutes love. He is telling us to obey the law.

1 Timothy:
1: 8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

"the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;" i.e. if it is used as a guide for life and not as a means of justification. Also, we see that the law is not just for Christians, the implication here is that it is intended to be applied to all of society as the Great Commission enjoins us to do.

Hebrews: 7: 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

You cited this verse earlier. I just would like to point out that the law is not abolished here, it is only changed. The change, as the whole book of Hebrews explains, is to show the Hebrew Christians that Christ replaces High Priest and that animal sacrifices are no longer required.

 

[follower of Christ]

I'm impressed with the volume of resources you seem to have at your fingertips.

Its a little thing I like to call 'Bible study'.
If youre interested, however, there is a program called E-Sword that is fantastic and very easy to use and has a lot of resources that you can download at their website.

Notice here that faith does not abolish the law; it remains in force; the law is established through faith.

And *IF* that were the only statement in scripture about faith and the law you MIGHT have a point.
Regrettably it isnt.
And it doesnt say there that we are UNDER law, now does it ?
So again I think you are missing the point and running with what you want it to say instead of what it DOES actually SAY.

To be under grace is to be forgiven of the infraction of the law. We are not under the law, not because the law is abolished but because Christ bore the penalty required by the law in our place. The law itself still stands, otherwise Christ would not have needed to die for us.

The law was our schoolmaster, our guide of sorts, to bring us TO faith.
After faith has come we are NO LONGER under the custodian or guide.
The law stands in that we can look to the law to see that having sex with animals is not something God wants us to partake of.
But we are not 'under' law in the way that the Old covenant Hebrew was. Im sorry, but we simply arent.

Paul then asks: does this give us a license to sin? His answer, that we must not sin, puts us right back to the law wherein lies the definition of sin.

whew.
And I think *I* said this VERY clearly a while ago.
Those 4 items from Acts 15 had in them that we are to abstain from 'fornication'...ie sexual immorality.
The New testament doesnt list out EVERY sort of sexually immoral act, but the LAW does have a pretty extensive list...altho even it doesnt contain EVERY act of immorality listed, nor could it given its size.
New testament 'fornication' is DEFINED in part by the Mosaic code as it relates TO sexual immorality...but that does NOT MEAN That Paul is a liar and that we ARE still UNDER the law (the tutor) as you seem to fallaciously believe.

Paul says here that we are dead to the law, that we have been delivered from it. We are delivered from it's consequences through Christ's atoning death. Paul does not say that the law itself is dead or abolished. It shows us our sin and our inability to do what is right. Without the law we cannot even see our own sin; with the law, "sin revived and I died." This "holy...just, and good" law has never been rescinded.

And Paul says here that we are not UNDER law...

For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under Law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under Law, but under grace? Let it not be!
(Rom 6:14-15 MKJV)

But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
(Gal 5:18 MKJV)

And we CAN understand our sin without the written law, friend...I suggest you get BACK into a bible and read the WHOLE thing this time.
Under this covenant Gods LAW is written on our hearts...

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
(Heb 8:10 KJV)

Even those who do not HAVE the law can exhibit that His law is written in their hearts...

for whenever Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law unto themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience witnessing with them, and among themselves their thoughts accuse or even defend them),
(Rom 2:14-15 EMTV)

Here we see it is the carnal (unbelieving) mind that operates outside the law. By implication, believers are subject to the law, subject in the sense that they willingly obey the commandments contained therein.

ALL instruction in the bible is 'law'...not just the Mosaic Code..even the 'law of Christ"

Gal 6:2 Bear one another's burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ.

You cited this verse earlier. I just would like to point out that the law is not abolished here, it is only changed. The change, as the whole book of Hebrews explains, is to show the Hebrew Christians that Christ replaces High Priest and that animal sacrifices are no longer required.

And the MANY other passages that Ive shown that DO show that we are no longer under law that you seem to want to ignore ?

"the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;" i.e. if it is used as a guide for life and not as a means of justification. Also, we see that the law is not just for Christians, the implication here is that it is intended to be applied to all of society as the Great Commission enjoins us to do.

The law is good, we KNOW that fact, that does not mean that we are UNDER law....or Paul is a liar.

For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under Law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under Law, but under grace? Let it not be!
(Rom 6:14-15 MKJV)

But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
(Gal 5:18 MKJV)

I do not annul the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing."
(Gal 2:21 EMTV)

.

 

[follower of Christ]

Paul says here that we are dead to the law, that we have been delivered from it. We are delivered from it's consequences through Christ's atoning death. Paul does not say that the law itself is dead or abolished. It shows us our sin and our inability to do what is right. Without the law we cannot even see our own sin; with the law, "sin revived and I died." This "holy...just, and good" law has never been rescinded.

"rescinded" - 1. to abrogate; annul; revoke; repeal.

One of the most beautiful passages in the New Testament...

But now in Christ Jesus, you who once were far away have come to be near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and who destroyed the dividing wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, that He might create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, putting to death the enmity in Himself.
(Eph 2:13-16 EMTV)


"abolished"
G2673
καÄαÃÂγέÉ
katargeÃ…Â
kat-arg-eh'-o
From G2596 and G691; to be (render) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively: - abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void.

And certainly you can argue again that this is only about SOME of the law, but PAUL says, once again, that we arent UNDER the law but faith in Christ.
And we have GODS law written in our hearts and minds according to Gods word, thus even as the gentiles who do not have the law we ARE able to keep Gods law simply because it IS written in our hearts and mind under this new covenant.

The law is good and just and we follow the moral aspects of it NOT because we are UNDER law, but because we have Gods law written in our hearts.

 

[lou11]

Follower of Christ,

I see that we're getting nowhere with this interchange. You listed your verses that you think totally closes the book on the question of the validity of the law today. I listed a number of verses that seem very much to say that the law is still in force. How can we resolve the differences? I suggest we take one verse or passage at a time and compare our understandings regarding it. Where would you like to start? I'd be happy to let you choose whatever verses/passages you like but please, only one at a time.

Thanks for your suggestions.

Lou

 

[Sparkey]

May I jump in? Huh? May I?
I'll take the liberty and jump with confidence.

Heb 8 was the first that was quoted (in rebuttal) I think -- but even if it wasn't maybe it should have been. The "New Covenant" has never been a significant feature of Jewish eschatology, other than the belief that eventually all Jews will know and follow the Torah without the need to study (Jer 31:32-33). Paul certainly knew this. He was summarizing (see Heb 8:1) and he quoted Jeremiah 31. I'd like to quote these two scriptures for the sake of the discussion (even though they have been quoted before):

The Prophecy through the Prophet Jeremiah starts by touching on the subject, "The Sins of the Father, the Sins of the Son" (but that's a different study all together, yes?)

• In those days they shall say no more, "The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge."[/*:m:3lw2a6xy]
• But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. [/*:m:3lw2a6xy]
• Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: [/*:m:3lw2a6xy]
• Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: [/*:m:3lw2a6xy]
• But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. [/*:m:3lw2a6xy]
• And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, "Know the LORD", for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for [/*:m:3lw2a6xy]
• I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. [/*:m:3lw2a6xy]
• Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: [/*:m:3lw2a6xy]
• If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. [/*:m:3lw2a6xy]
• Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.
  Jeremiah 31:29-37 (KJV)[/*:m:3lw2a6xy]

BTW: The heavens can not be measured - even with our most advanced telescopes searching the heavens day and night -- it is estimated that we have not seen yet a BILLIONTH of the stars in Creation. We are taught that the stars at the furthest reaches of space will never be seen because they are traveling away from us (and according to scientists it would take billions of light years for their light to reach the earth).

The immutability of the law was known by the Jews of the day and can be seen in Jer 33:25 when God states that His part of the bargain includes his covenant with the heavens itself. He goes on to say that He will not break His part of the law, the agreement, the Covenant, the Torah itself.

ENTER HERE, Paul, teaching that the law was about to be abolished. Note that when Paul said, "about to be abolished" he was speaking after the time that Jesus had died on the cross and after he was resurrected and after he (Paul) had witnessed this.

For the sake of brevity I'll quote only Heb 8:1 & 13:
Heb 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Understand that to the Jewish mind the covenant, the law, the Torah, was the entire agreement between G-d (I say it like that because they said it like that) and man. Scholars at the time broke it down to various agreements (all agreements) made between God and man. The Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, the covenant to Jacob in his dream, Mosaic, the Covenant to Lot (King David was only allowed to rule over that land (formally the land of Moab) because he was a descendant of Ruth the Moabitess), the Israel Covenant (to the children of Israel, also called the Palestinian Covenant), The Davidic Covenant, the "Future Covenant" (spoken of by the Prophet Jeremiah and quoted by Paul).

Scholars copied each part of the "Torah" and worked diligently to preserve every aspect of their only hope. They were not questioning the truth of what Jesus taught, that man lives not by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God - but only that the man was unlearned. He had not been taught as they were, was not a Rabbi with a Smicha (Jewish ordination). Pharisees worked toward keeping their part of the Torah in order to compel the "Shekhinah Glory of G-d" to return to the Temple. Shekhinah (שכינ×â€) means the dwelling place and is used to denote the settling presence of God.

Can we see, that even at the time that Paul was writing, the law was only said to be "ready to vanish away"?

This then to me is the "starting point", yes?

I agree with Paul that I am no longer bound by the ordinance but instead by grace. In point of fact, even though the law was a 'Master' with a purpose - to lead us to Jesus, Grace was given to all those who followed it (with God-Trust in their hearts), even though they lived on earth before the Passover was fulfilled. Still, the point is the point. It isn't by our righteousness that we are saved but instead it is God-Trust, as was the case for Abraham (who trusted God) so also is the case for Jesus, Paul and even me. We are saved by our belief (our faith) through Grace. We, the beggerly elements of the earth, the lowly parts, are saved to show forth the Shekhinah glory of our Father. We are given the right and authority to become like Christ, even though we know not what we will be - we are assured that we will be like HIM! We are the temple, yes? We don't know in what watch the Master of the house will come - will it be in the first watch or the third? We do know that the Lord is not slow (like men) but is unwilling that any [given to him] should perish. We are told to "Watch therefore and be diligent". To remain in the grace and peace of them that established us for the purpose that God has proposed -- the harvest and revealing of the saints in that day.

 

[follower of Christ]

Follower of Christ,

I see that we're getting nowhere with this interchange.

inevitably....

You listed your verses that you think totally closes the book on the question of the validity of the law today.

I gave enough evidence to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that we NT believers are not under the law.
That the law was good and that the moral law is written on our hearts is another matter.

I listed a number of verses that seem very much to say that the law is still in force.

No, your passages DIDNT say anything about our being UNDER the law, Im afraid. You are inserting that concept into them.

How can we resolve the differences?

By one of us looking at what his supposed evidence DOES and DOESNT actually SAY in the matter, and secondly not handwaving away the evidence presented to him.

I suggest we take one verse or passage at a time and compare our understandings regarding it.

Where would you like to start? I'd be happy to let you choose whatever verses/passages you like but please, only one at a time.

Thanks for your suggestions.

Lou

I dont do the 'one versin' thing' anymore. Nor do I get into controlled discussions.
We take it ALL together, in context and in harmony with the whole, or we dont take it at all...which is where we are at right now since apparently this has no where to go.

Ive given my evidence....youve given yours. Neither of us seems to be interested in changing our views so there is no reason to pursue this issue further.
I assure you that I have no intention of changing my views after so much study in the matter

God bless.

 

[lou11]

May I jump in? Huh? May I?
I'll take the liberty and jump with confidence.

For the sake of brevity I'll quote only Heb 8:1 & 13:
Heb 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. Can we see, that even at the time that Paul was writing, the law was only said to be "ready to vanish away"?

This then to me is the "starting point", yes?

Thanks for jumping in, although I wish it were on my side of the question.

OK, Christ is our High Priest. This necessitated the change in the law of Heb. 7:14. To appreciate what is meant by the old covenant vanishing away, we need to consider the context of the statement:

8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount.
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

What is in view here is the high priesthood of Christ. The Christian Jews to whom the letter is directed were ready to accept Christ as prophet and king but wanted to hold on to the Aaronic priesthood and Temple worship. In AD 70 the Temple was destroyed and the Aaronic priesthood was terminated, it vanished away.

In the new covenant, as a consequence of Christ's work and the pouring out of the HS, God's law would be internal as well as external. God says, "I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts." The laws are not done away with; they are still in force; they define sin and righteousness and believers are expected to obey them.

To attempt to do away with the OT law is to leave the world without any law from God. The NT does not redefine the law, nor does it supply a substitute for it. The Sermon on the Mount did not change the law, it simply explained it's original intent in contrast with the teachings of the Pharisees. Likewise, the balance of the NT rests on the premise of its continuance.

 

[lou11]

Follower of Christ,

I see that we're getting nowhere with this interchange.

inevitably....

You listed your verses that you think totally closes the book on the question of the validity of the law today.

I gave enough evidence to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that we NT believers are not under the law.
That the law was good and that the moral law is written on our hearts is another matter.
[quote:13b8a7fp] I listed a number of verses that seem very much to say that the law is still in force.

No, your passages DIDNT say anything about our being UNDER the law, Im afraid. You are inserting that concept into them.

How can we resolve the differences?

By one of us looking at what his supposed evidence DOES and DOESNT actually SAY in the matter, and secondly not handwaving away the evidence presented to him.

I suggest we take one verse or passage at a time and compare our understandings regarding it.

Where would you like to start? I'd be happy to let you choose whatever verses/passages you like but please, only one at a time.

Thanks for your suggestions.

Lou

I dont do the 'one versin' thing' anymore. Nor do I get into controlled discussions.
We take it ALL together, in context and in harmony with the whole, or we dont take it at all...which is where we are at right now since apparently this has no where to go.

Ive given my evidence....youve given yours. Neither of us seems to be interested in changing our views so there is no reason to pursue this issue further.
I assure you that I have no intention of changing my views after so much study in the matter

God bless.[/quote:13b8a7fp]

OK, I thought we might get somewhere if we proceeded in a more orderly fashion. But if you're so set in your views that they can't be changed, I guess that won't happen anyway.

God bless you in your continued Bible study.

 

[follower of Christ]

The laws are not done away with; they are still in force; they define sin and righteousness and believers are expected to obey them.

I hardly think that anyone here is arguing that we dont have 'rules' to obey any more, friend.
The 'law', as in the code itself, is good and holy, but that doesnt mean that we are under the law any longer.

Here is another point about the law...

But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not laid down for the righteous, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for killers of fathers and killers of mothers, for murderers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is opposed to sound doctrine, according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, with which I was entrusted.
(1Ti 1:8-11 EMTV)

And what did Romans tell us ?

Why then the law? It was added on account of transgressions, until the Seed should come to whom it had been promised; and it was commanded through angels by the hand of a mediator.
(Gal 3:19 EMTV)

WHY the law ?
Because of transgressions.
Law is not given, not necessary, for those who are righteous, but for those who TRANSGRESS.
If EVERYONE was honorable and kind and sincere and loved their neighbor how many laws in existence today WOULD exist ?
Most of them would not have been necessary because we wouldnt be stealing from each other, or hurting, murdering, raping or fornicating *IF* we were righteous.
The MAN OF GOD is SUPPOSED to BE righteous.
The hardhearted Hebrews werent righteous at all. They were stubborn, callous idolators who had to have the written law because they apparently couldnt play nice without it...and obviously even WITH the written law they still couldnt and cant figure out how to be pleasing to God.

Therefore, is the law against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given which was able to give life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.
(Gal 3:21 EMTV)

Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), why is there yet a need for another priest to rise, according to the order of Melchizedek, and not to be called according to the order of Aaron?
(Heb 7:11 EMTV)

To attempt to do away with the OT law is to leave the world without any law from God. The NT does not redefine the law, nor does it supply a substitute for it. The Sermon on the Mount did not change the law, it simply explained it's original intent in contrast with the teachings of the Pharisees. Likewise, the balance of the NT rests on the premise of its continuance.

You seem to be reading much into peoples words things that ARENT being said.
Let me say this again and hopefully you pay attention this time.
WE ARE NOT UNDER LAW...that DOESNT mean that the LAW itself is not good...it IS.
The law was to bring us TO faith...TO Christ.
Do you NEED to be told not to murder ? To not Steal? Please tell me that you dont.
But if you NEED the written LAW to TELL you not to rape and murder...or steal, or covet, or bow to idols...then I submit that you may want to start examining a bit more of yourself to see why that is.
A christian with the Holy Spirit inside him guiding him into all truth should NOT have to even look at the Mosaic Code to KNOW that getting drunk and fighting is wrong.

 

[follower of Christ]

OK, I thought we might get somewhere if we proceeded in a more orderly fashion. But if you're so set in your views that they can't be changed, I guess that won't happen anyway.

God bless you in your continued Bible study.

Firstly lets not even remotely pretend here that the case against our being under law has not been entirely exposed for the error that it is.
Secondly lets not even go to a place where we're trying to claim that youve proven what has been shown to you as being wrong and Im simply being obstinate.
You havent proven your case and youve purposefully rejected CLEAR words of Paul that no 1st grader could mistake about our NOT being under law.
And the reason why I refuse to discuss the matter in the way that you want....a controlled environment....is that Ive been down that road before and I know where it ends up.

*IF* your view were correct then you wouldnt have to dismiss so much proof that we ARENT under law...and you wouldnt have to read so much INTO the passages you are presenting and you CERTAINLY would not need to control the discussion.

Ive debated long enough to know when its pointless and a waste of my time.

 

[lou11]

OK, I thought we might get somewhere if we proceeded in a more orderly fashion. But if you're so set in your views that they can't be changed, I guess that won't happen anyway.

God bless you in your continued Bible study.

Firstly lets not even remotely pretend here that the case against our being under law has not been entirely exposed for the error that it is.
Secondly lets not even go to a place where we're trying to claim that youve proven what has been shown to you as being wrong and Im simply being obstinate.
You havent proven your case and youve purposefully rejected CLEAR words of Paul that no 1st grader could mistake about our NOT being under law.
And the reason why I refuse to discuss the matter in the way that you want....a controlled environment....is that Ive been down that road before and I know where it ends up.

*IF* your view were correct then you wouldnt have to dismiss so much proof that we ARENT under law...and you wouldnt have to read so much INTO the passages you are presenting and you CERTAINLY would not need to control the discussion.

Ive debated long enough to know when its pointless and a waste of my time.

Just when I thought we were all done with this discussion, you send me another blast loaded with false statements and implications that I find I can't just let sit there.

First, I never said Christians are under the law. They are not under the law in the sense that, being forgiven in Christ, they no longer have the judgment of the law, the death penalty, hanging over their heads. Also, they are not under the law as related to blood sacrifices, Christ performed the final sacrifice. Each of the passages you cited use the expression "not under the law" in one of these senses. For example:

Romans 6:15, "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid."

Here we are not under the law because we are under God's grace in Christ. But we are also told to not sin which means we are to obey the law with respect to sin.

1John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

These two verses taken together clearly demonstrate that Christians are required to obey the law. Just to be sure I'm not misunderstood, let me spell it out: First, they are told they must not sin and second, they are told that sin is any violation of the law. Q.E.D. Christians must not fail to obey the law.
They are not under the penalty of the law but they are required to obey it. For true believers this is easy because the law is also written in their hearts.

Second, I have not attempted to control the discussion but merely responded to those that took a view different from mine. I thought that's what this forum was all about. We can continue this discussion if you like but I think an orderly process is more likely to get us somewhere.

 

[follower of Christ]

First, I never said Christians are under the law. They are not under the law in the sense that, being forgiven in Christ, they no longer have the judgment of the law, the death penalty, hanging over their heads. Also, they are not under the law as related to blood sacrifices, Christ performed the final sacrifice. Each of the passages you cited use the expression "not under the law" in one of these senses. For example:

You keep saying that you arent saying that we are under law, but then in your posts you turn right around and show that ONLY part of the law was 'removed'...ie we're still 'under' the rest of it, it would seem.

You really need to spell out exactly what you DO believe in a very clear manner so I can stop misunderstanding your intent

Here we are not under the law because we are under God's grace in Christ. But we are also told to not sin which means we are to obey the law with respect to sin.

And uh...WHICH 'law' is that again ?
See, I dont see that it distinguishes between 'ceremonial law' or 'moral law' there. Can you show me where it does in that passage in 1 John ?

These two verses taken together clearly demonstrate that Christians are required to obey the law. Just to be sure I'm not misunderstood, let me spell it out: First, they are told they must not sin and second, they are told that sin is any violation of the law. Q.E.D. Christians must not fail to obey the law.

And again, WHICH law ? which LAWS ?
Where is the distinction ?

you seem to forget, yet again, that Christs instruction is also 'law'...as would be Pauls. And also the 'law' of the land that we Christians are to obey. There are a lot of 'laws' and they dont necessarily mean the Mosaic Code.
But again, We are told in Acts to avoid fornication which passages such as 1 Cor 5 shows is defined in part by the law.

They are not under the penalty of the law but they are required to obey it. For true believers this is easy because the law is also written in their hearts.

Really ?
So no shellfish or clothes of mixed fibers for you, I assume ?