New Testament View of the Old Testament

[Brother Lionel]

According to the New Testament, the only set of Old Testament laws which were done away with were the ceremonial laws.

No. This view is undermined by his argument of Romans 7. So we know that Paul thinks we are no longer under law – that the new authority is the Spirit. Does this “law†that we are no longer under include the 10 commandments? Obviously it does.

No?? Well, let’s examine Romans 7 shall we?? Starting at verse one; we can see the audience at which he is addressing and the context that the scriptures are in:

"Know ye not, brethren, for I speak to them that know the law, how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?"

Here his letter is addressed to those who “know the law†and Paul says that all mankind are subject to the law as long as they are alive. So here he claims that the law still exists even though Jesus took away its penalty. In the succeeding verses, he says that:

“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. 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.†- Romans 7:5, & 6

Here we see what the premise of this chapter is - the penalty of the law. Hence, it would make perfect sense to see that we were “delivered from the curse (penalty) of the lawâ€Â. Paul later verifies this in Romans 7:23, 24, & 25:

“But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.â€Â

Notice here that Paul says that the inherent activity of his flesh (sin) is warring against the activity of the mind (the desire to serve God), bringing him into captivity “to the law of sin†(because sin equals death). He concludes by claiming that his flesh is condemned to death because “the wages of sin is death†(verse 24), but due to the plan of salvation through Jesus, he can now obtain life being that sin brings death but Jesus came to bring life (Jhn 10:10). To the natural man (one who is not born again), they are, by birth, put under the consequence that the law brings being that the law and the commandments are holy, just, and good (verse 12) and man is exceeding sinful (verse 13). The law has always remained, per Paul, but we are all under the consequence of the law until death unless we accept Jesus. At that point (when we accept Jesus), the penalty of the law that we are due to receive has been transferred to Jesus because He bore our iniquities (Isaiah 53:5, 11; Rom 5:6-8; 1Cr 15:3). So, Paul says that the law and the commandments are holy, just, and good. And this law brings death because it is so holy and we are so sinful. And sin brings death. But now we are free from that death because of Jesus. But does that “free†us from obedience to the law, Paul says God forbid!

I trust I need not point out the obvious, but I will. The command “Do not covet†is one of – you guessed it – the 10 commandments.

So it is clear that Paul sees that we have been released from the 10 commandments.

If this is your view of Paul’s message, could you please explain 1 Cointhians 7:19 where Paul says “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.�

 

[Drew]

No?? Well, let’s examine Romans 7 shall we?? Starting at verse one; we can see the audience at which he is addressing and the context that the scriptures are in:

"Know ye not, brethren, for I speak to them that know the law, how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?"

Here his letter is addressed to those who “know the law†and Paul says that all mankind are subject to the law as long as they are alive.

I am sorry, BL but you are mistaken in this assertion that the Law of Moses - which is what Paul is talking about here - is for "all mankind".

It is only for the nation of Israel. Do you wish me to prove this?

So here he claims that the law still exists even though Jesus took away its penalty.

No. Tell us precisely what verse has Paul saying that the law still exists. BL, there simply is no such verse! You must be reading that in.

 

[Drew]

In the succeeding verses, he says that:

“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. 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.†- Romans 7:5, & 6

Here we see what the premise of this chapter is - the penalty of the law. Hence, it would make perfect sense to see that we were “delivered from the curse (penalty) of the lawâ€Â. Paul later verifies this in Romans 7:23, 24, & 25:

“But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.â€Â

This is all a reflection on the state of the Jew under the Torah - none of it describes the Christian.

Romans 7 does not deal with the experiences of the believer. It is Paul's reflection on the plight of the Jew under Torah, analyzed from his perspective as a Christian.

Would the Christian say this about his experience as a Christian:

Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death

Of course not. Paul is looking back here to the time when the advent of the Law - the Torah - brought judgement and death. This is true of the Jew under Torah, not the Christian. Note the specific allusion to the delivery of the Torah at Sinai – “when the commandment cameâ€Â. Clearly, Paul is describing the history of Israel, using himself (a Jew) as a representative.

Would the Christian say this about his experience as a Christian:

But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful

Sin produces death in the Christian? Sin becomes utterly sinful in the Christian? Of course not.

Please do not misunderstand Romans 7. It is not a transcript of Christian experience, for the alleged "elect" or otherwise. It is what Paul knows to be the case about the plight of the Jew under Torah, as seen from Paul's present state - that of a redeemed saint.

 

[Drew]

Paul begins his treatment of the struggling person of Romans 7 in the past tense:

Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

Paul is speaking about the status of the Jew under Torah in the past. Long before Paul was born - that is to say in Paul's past - the Torah was given to Jews.

Later Paul switches to the present:

but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out

The reason that Paul switches to the present is that he wants to make the point that even in the present, even after their Messiah has come - the Jew remains (in the present) in slavery to the Torah.

It is therefore clear that the proposal that Paul is talking about the status of the Jew under the Torah works perfectly well with the "past to present" transition that we get in Romans 7: the Jew was given the Torah in the past and it gave him problems in the past. The Jew who rejects Jesus in the present persists in the problematic state of being under Torah and a slave to sin.

The argument that Paul is talking about the Jew under Torah in Romans 7 makes perfect sense of the "past to present" transition of tenses.

 

[Drew]

If this is your view of Paul’s message, could you please explain 1 Corinthians 7:19 where Paul says “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.�

I plan to get back to you on this. But you have an obligation to explain why Paul says, in Romans 7, that we have been released from the written code - and then makes it clear that this code includes the 10 commandments.

You cannot counter my argument simply by providing an argument about a different text - in this case 1 Cor 7. Let's say that I concede that 1 Cor 7:19 proves the 10 commandments are still in force - I don't, but let's say I did. What will a neutral reader see? He will see this:

1. An unrefuted argument that we have been released from the 10 commandments - my Romans 7 argument, which you have not engaged.

2. A successful argument that the 10 commandments are still in force - your 1 cor 7:19 argument.

Each of us has to address the other person's argument.

 

[Brother Lionel]

No?? Well, let’s examine Romans 7 shall we?? Starting at verse one; we can see the audience at which he is addressing and the context that the scriptures are in:

"Know ye not, brethren, for I speak to them that know the law, how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?"

Here his letter is addressed to those who “know the law†and Paul says that all mankind are subject to the law as long as they are alive.

I am sorry, BL but you are mistaken in this assertion that the Law of Moses - which is what Paul is talking about here - is for "all mankind".

It is only for the nation of Israel. Do you wish me to prove this?

[quote="Brother Lionel":3ipoxqq6]So here he claims that the law still exists even though Jesus took away its penalty.

No. Tell us precisely what verse has Paul saying that the law still exists. BL, there simply is no such verse! You must be reading that in.[/quote:3ipoxqq6]

Actually, you are correct in one thing, these laws are only for the nation of Israel, just like the New Covenant. According to the bible, The New Covenant is only made with Israel and the tribe of Judah. However, those who accept Jesus will be "grafted in" to the stock of Israel. The bible teaches in Galatians 3:29 that "if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Abrahams seed according to the bible were the Nation of Israel, and the promise is eternal life under the New Covenant which was only promised to Israel. So with your logic, we're all doomed because of our DNA. But God, with His perfect plan of salvation, has allowed the Gentiles to take part in eternal life as well. So when we accept Jesus into our life, we become spiritual Jews. Paul affirms this in Romans 2:26-29 where he says:

"Therefore, if an uncircumcised man (Gentile) keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision (Jewish or of the Jewish faith)? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law (Jews who claim they have eternal life because of their DNA yet they live contrary to the will of God which is the Law of God)? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly (true faith is not by DNA), nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly (whether Jew or Gentile); and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God."

So if you have accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior, then the bible teaches that you are a spiritual Jew and you will take part in the promise that was made only to Jews. And to answer your second question, there are many verses in the bible other than in Romans 7 where it shows that the Law of God still exist:

Rom 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified

Rom 7:12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.

Rom 7:25 I thank God--through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

1Ti 1:8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully

Jam 1:25 But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues [in it], and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.

Jam 2:12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.

Mat 5:19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches [them], he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Jhn 14:15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments.

Jhn 15:10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.

1Cr 7:19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters

1Jo 2:3, 4 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.



So, if the law doesnt exist, why are these verses telling us that we should live by the Law of God??

 

[Godfrey]

The old, Mosaic, covenant was between God and the Jewish nation, and for that reason alone it doesn't apply to Gentiles.

Question: Why were gentiles required to obey it?

I didn't know they were

Can you point me to something specific?

 

[Drew]

Actually, you are correct in one thing, these laws are only for the nation of Israel, just like the New Covenant. According to the bible, The New Covenant is only made with Israel and the tribe of Judah. However, those who accept Jesus will be "grafted in" to the stock of Israel. The bible teaches in Galatians 3:29 that "if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Abrahams seed according to the bible were the Nation of Israel, and the promise is eternal life under the New Covenant which was only promised to Israel. So with your logic, we're all doomed because of our DNA.

My logic does not lead to that conclusion that we are all doomed. Please explain why you think my logic leads to such a conclusion. You cannot simply make a claim - you need to defend it.

And to answer your second question, there are many verses in the bible other than in Romans 7 where it shows that the Law of God still exist:

Rom 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified

Rom 7:12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.

Rom 7:25 I thank God--through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

I believe that you are mistaken in respect to all the Romans 7 references. I have presented arguments that Romans 7 is Paul’s reflection on the status of the Jew living under the Torah. To the extent that such arguments succeed, these texts from Romans 7 are in no way evidence that the Torah is still in force. And I think those arguments do succeed. Paul is looking back on the history of his people, living under the Torah, and telling the reader what was the case when the Torah was in force. But we know from numerous texts that Paul believes the Torah has, in fact, been retired.

Now it is true that argument shifts from the past tense to the present tense. When this happens, Paul is shifting from what “was the case†in the past to what is presently the case for the Jew who, despite the fact that the Torah has been retired, continues to follow it.

We can debate this further if you like but the point is this: you cannot simply “claim†these verses as support for your position – I have already presented some arguments about Romans 7 and have others as well. These collectively, I suggest, show that Paul is reflecting on 2 things:

1. What life was like for the Jew when the Torah was in force;

2. What life continues to be like for the Jew who continues to follow Torah even though it has, in fact, been retired.

If such arguments succeed, none of the Romans 7 can be used to support the continued applicability of the Law of Moses.

 

[Drew]

I believe that the case against the use of the Romans 7 texts to support continued applicability of the Torah is relatively easy to make.

The Romans 2 text is much more challenging. I will get to that as soon as I can.

 

[Brother Lionel]

Please do. ;)

 

[Brother Lionel]

Anything yet Drew?? :D

 

[RND]

I didn't know they were

Can you point me to something specific?

Gladly.

Lev 18:26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit [any] of these abominations; [neither] any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:

Lev 24:22 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I [am] the LORD your God.

Num 15:16 One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.

Num 15:29 Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, [both for] him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them.

Num 9:14 And if a stranger shall sojourn among you, and will keep the passover unto the LORD; according to the ordinance of the passover, and according to the manner thereof, so shall he do: ye shall have one ordinance, both for the stranger, and for him that was born in the land.

Deu 31:12 Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that [is] within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law:

There are many more that require a stranger sojourning in Israel to obey the laws, statues and commandments of the Lord.

 

[Drew]

Anything yet Drew?? :D

It should be pointed out that this is a two way street. There are plenty of unrefuted arguments of mine on the table. So just as I need to address Romans 2:13, you have a lot of work to do as well.

In Romans 2:13, the "law" that Paul refers to is not the Law of Moses. I assert this despite the fact that when Paul uses the phrase "the law", he usually means the Law of Moses. And it is the Law of Moses that has been retired.

What exactly Paul means by "the law" in this text will need to wait for another post. But it cannot be the Law of Moses. And this is what is relevant in the present debate. Why can't it be the Law of Moses? Consider this:

And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?

Paul clearly has a distinction in ming between "the letter of Law" - which is the Law of Moses - and this other "Law" which the Gentile keeps.

So Romans 2:13 does not demonstrate that the Law of Moses remains in force. And that's a relief, since if it did, Paul would be contradicting his many clear assertions that the Law of Moses is indeed retired (e.g. Galatians 3, Ephesians 2, Colossians 2).

More later.

 

[Brother Lionel]

Anything yet Drew?? :D

It should be pointed out that this is a two way street.

So is that an "I dont know" in response to my question?

There are plenty of unrefuted arguments of mine on the table.
If you would like, we can go over each one, one at a time. I have the patience and plenty of time to discuss.

In Romans 2:13, the "law" that Paul refers to is not the Law of Moses. I assert this despite the fact that when Paul uses the phrase "the law", he usually means the Law of Moses. And it is the Law of Moses that has been retired.

What exactly Paul means by "the law" in this text will need to wait for another post. But it cannot be the Law of Moses. And this is what is relevant in the present debate. Why can't it be the Law of Moses? Consider this:

And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?

Paul clearly has a distinction in ming between "the letter of Law" - which is the Law of Moses - and this other "Law" which the Gentile keeps.

Please, by all means, show us what "law" Paul was referring to because this is what he says:

Rom 2:14-22 - For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?

Wow! Here we see the word law eight times and Paul references some of the Ten Commandments in verses 21 and 22. So please, enlighten us as to what "law" Paul was referring to if it was not the Law of God.

So Romans 2:13 does not demonstrate that the Law of Moses remains in force. And that's a relief, since if it did, Paul would be contradicting his many clear assertions that the Law of Moses is indeed retired (e.g. Galatians 3, Ephesians 2, Colossians 2).

More later.

Really??? So I guess Paul is not referring to the Law of God here either?:

1 Corinthians 7:19 - Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.

 

[RND]

In Romans 2:13, the "law" that Paul refers to is not the Law of Moses. I assert this despite the fact that when Paul uses the phrase "the law", he usually means the Law of Moses. And it is the Law of Moses that has been retired.

Paul was either talking about the Ten Commandments or the Mosaic law. How do you know Paul was not referring to the TC? Just because?

Consider this:

And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law?

What happens to one that is "Spiritually" circumcised if they break the law? If they break the law will their circumcision be counted as nothing?

Here's a video that hopefully will help your understanding.......

[youtube:1mhsjpv1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tXSSnL4fXA[/youtube:1mhsjpv1]

 

[Brother Lionel]

Could you please explain this one also?

1John 5:2, 3 - By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

What is your understanding of this??

 

[Sparkey]

I didn't know they were

Can you point me to something specific?

Gladly.

Lev 18:26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit [any] of these abominations; [neither] any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:

Lev 24:22 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I [am] the LORD your God.

Num 15:16 One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.

Num 15:29 Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, [both for] him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them.

Num 9:14 And if a stranger shall sojourn among you, and will keep the passover unto the LORD; according to the ordinance of the passover, and according to the manner thereof, so shall he do: ye shall have one ordinance, both for the stranger, and for him that was born in the land.

Deu 31:12 Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that [is] within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law:

There are many more that require a stranger sojourning in Israel to obey the laws, statues and commandments of the Lord.

Something you may find worth looking at: 'One Law' in Context

I had just been surfing the web before coming here and found it.

~Sparrow

 

[isaacschade]

I would like to add in something I have just read that is helping my understanding. For one of my seminary classes we are reading a book entitled "Christian Attitudes to War, Peace, and Revolution" by Yoder.

One of the chapters explores themes of the Old Testament. On page 322, Yoder is discussing God's ability to change his mind about how we are to treat our enemies. He says that through his sovereignty God can "simply change the rules." He notes that our finite minds don't have the capacity to understand this or question it. He goes on to say that through the school of thought of dispensationalism God has changed the rules 7 times between Genesis and our present day.

The quote that really stuck out to me was Yoder's thought that "the purpose of theology in dispensationalist thought is to know which parts of the Bible are for which time period."

My question now is this: if God is changing the rules (and how are we to assume anything other than that God continues to do so), how can we know which ones are for our time period? I think this carries my original questions a little further. How do we know in the present day when God again changes the rules? And through that changing do the old rules apply? fully? partly? not at all?

Just thought this would add another level to our discussion.

 

[Brother Lionel]

My question now is this: if God is changing the rules (and how are we to assume anything other than that God continues to do so), how can we know which ones are for our time period? I think this carries my original questions a little further. How do we know in the present day when God again changes the rules? And through that changing do the old rules apply? fully? partly? not at all?

Just thought this would add another level to our discussion.

Hey Isaac -
I recently posted a reply in another post that may be an answer for you. I changed it a bit to fit the question:

"Well, of course the ultimate litmus test is the Word of God. By the word, we can see what God wants and when. For instance, Paul teaches that the ceremonial law has been abrogated in Colossians 2:13-17 by the true sacrifice - Jesus.

'And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.'

Here we see that what was valid centuries ago, is not something that God requires today. Some have erroneously assumed that Paul meant most of the OT law was done away with; which is not biblical because this thought does not agree with the rest of his writings where he teaches believers to obey the law of God. Most Christians (even pastors and teachers) also fail to keep in mind that Paul's writings were addressing the problem or issue of his day which is in the context of salvation and justification by keeping the law. The Jewish authorities were teaching salvation by obedience to the law as opposed to belief in the Messiah. Paul knew that he had to aggressively address this in his letters to the Gentile churches in order for them to have the proper view of the law. Notice I said 'to have the proper view of the law', not to disregard the law. Many Christians reference Paul's writings to support teachings that diminish God's law which is a direct attempt (whether knowingly or unknowingly) to diminish God's standards. Thus, by lowering God's standards, our so called righteouness can appear to be "more righteous" and the sin in our lives can now be tolerated. But the scriptures are plain in that 'all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags' - Isa 64:6. This view also attacks the gospel of Jesus Christ because when God's standards are lowered (by removing the need to obey certain laws), the less we sin because 'where there's no law, there's no transgression' - Rom 4:15. And the less we appear to sin, the need of a Savior weakens. So, the Word in it's proper context is the true way to determine what God wants, what He expects from us today, and what will He require in the future. And in the future there will be no need for a law because there will be no sin. Thus, God will have fulfilled the New Covenant where His laws will be in our minds and in our hearts; and He will be our God and we will be His people; and we 'shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for we shall all know Him, from the least of us unto the greatest of us. And He will forgive our iniquity, and He will remember our sins no more (Jeremiah 31:33 & 34).' So, the future will be quite different from the present but it is all part of God's divine plan."

 

[isaacschade]

thanks brother lionel!
your responses are always so well thought out and engendering of what i believe to be christian community. thanks for your level head and honesty.