Should Christians Keep the Ten Commandments Today???

[lovely]

RND, and Brother Lionel,

I think the Scriptures are clear, and things have been summed up. Wisdom tells me that not only has the discussion run it's course, but that no one is listening...only baiting. This is has all the ear marks of a vain dispute at this point...probably a few posts ago. I apologize to the board for encouraging such a thing.

 

[RND]

RND, and Brother Lionel,

I think the Scriptures are clear, and things have been summed up. Wisdom tells me that not only has the discussion run it's course, but that no one is listening...only baiting. This is has all the ear marks of a vain dispute at this point...probably a few posts ago. I apologize to the board for encouraging such a thing.

You definitely have spoken the truth with respect to the scriptures being clear. To suggest that the holy, perfect and just law of God has somehow been changed or removed is unscriptural and explains why the world, especially this country, has changed so dramatically in just a few short generations. It's a 'new age' world where there are absolutely no standards to live by anymore. So who really changed? God or man?

In answer to the claim that at the death of Christ the precepts of the decalogue had been abolished with the ceremonial law, Wesley said: "The moral law, contained in the ten commandments, and enforced by the prophets, he did not take away. It was not the design of his coming to revoke any part of this. This is a law which never can be broken, which ‘stands fast as the faithful witness in Heaven.' . . . This was from the beginning of the world, being `written not on tables of stone,' but on the hearts of all the children of men, when they came out of the hands of the Creator. And, however the letters once written by the finger of God are now in a great measure defaced by sin, yet can they not wholly be blotted out, while we have any consciousness of good and evil. Every part of this law must remain in force upon all mankind, and in all ages; as not depending either on time or place, or any other circumstances liable to change, but on the nature of God, and the nature of man, and their unchangeable relation to each other. - Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, page 262

Christ came to give moral power to man; to elevate, ennoble, and strengthen him. He came to prove the falsity of Satan's charge that God had made a law which man could not keep. While possessing man's nature, Christ kept the Ten Commandments. Thus He proved to the inhabitants of the unfallen worlds and to human beings that it is possible for man perfectly to obey the law. He vindicated God's justice in demanding obedience to His law. Those who accept Christ as their Saviour, becoming partakers of the divine nature, are enabled to follow His example of obedience to every divine precept. - Ellen G. White, The Signs of the Times , May 14, 1902

 

[Brother Lionel]

This is most interesting. Tell me what Jesus meant when stated the following:

Mat 5:17-19 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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. 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."

 

[Ben Joiner]

Brother Lionel,
What do I believe? A lot of things. Basically, that any law not reinstated in the NT was only meant for those it was given to. But I'm open to being convinced otherwise because I haven't given it a whole lot of study. As to the main question, I wanna know what the basis is for deciding "hey this law is clearly given as temporary, but this one isn't." You can call it a doctrine, but the point I was getting at is that of how the doctrine is judged to be a true one. Also, if the laws were originally given as permanent, then that point would've been clear in the OT. So that to me is the convincing factor. What does the OT say?

 

[Brother Lionel]

Brother Lionel,
What do I believe? A lot of things. Basically, that any law not reinstated in the NT was only meant for those it was given to. But I'm open to being convinced otherwise because I haven't given it a whole lot of study.

Fair enough. Well, in order to understand the validity of the OT laws in light of the NT, we have understand all of the OT laws. And basically, there were four sets of laws given to the Nation of Israel:

The Moral Law (God's Ten Commandments)
The Ceremonial Law (the ordinances within it, the sacrificial system, and the feast days)
The Health Law (foods that were to be eaten and foods that weren't)
The Civil Law (to maintain order within the Nation)

Each and every law in the OT fell under either of these categories. So, the subject is in regards to the first set of laws, the Ten Commandments. We all know them but do Christians need to live by these ten principles today?

As to the main question, I wanna know what the basis is for deciding "hey this law is clearly given as temporary, but this one isn't." You can call it a doctrine, but the point I was getting at is that of how the doctrine is judged to be a true one.

Well, of course the ultimate litmus test is the Word of God. By the word, we can see where which laws were given as temporary and which laws are still valid today. 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."

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 if a doctrine is true or false. We can not extract one scripture from a passage to prove a point because someone could easily take it out of context.

Also, if the laws were originally given as permanent, then that point would've been clear in the OT. So that to me is the convincing factor. What does the OT say?

Great point. And great question. Let's take a look at whether or not God made a distinction between the Ten Commandments (being that this is the what the thread is about) and the Law of Moses.

The Ten Commandments were spoken by God - Exodus 20:1, Deut 4:12 & 13
The other laws were spoken by Moses - Exodus 35:4, Deut 4:14

The Ten Commandments were written by God - Exodus 24:12, Exodus 34:28, Deut 4:13
The other laws were written by Moses - Exodus 24:4, Deuteronomy 31:9

The Ten Commandments were written on stone - Exodus 24:12, Exodus 34:1, Deuteronomy 4:13, Deuteronomy 9:10 & 11
The other laws were written on paper - Exodus 24:4, Deuteronomy 31:24,

The Ten Commandments were placed inside the ark, directly under the mercy seat - Deuteronomy 10:2 & 5
The other laws were placed outside of the ark, on the side pocket - Deuteronomy 31:26

If you read each of these scriptures, you would clearly see that the ten commandments were distinct from the laws of Moses.

 

[RND]

Brother Lionel,
What do I believe? A lot of things. Basically, that any law not reinstated in the NT was only meant for those it was given to.

Question:What do you consider "given to?" For example, strangers were required, on the pain of death, to observe all of the Ten Commandments - why?

 

[Ben Joiner]

Brother Lionel,
You have changed my mind on some points. Clearly the 10C are especially uplifted over other laws in the OT. For example, they were the only ones spoken out of the mountain/sky fire/cloud thing. (I have a hard time describing such things)

So they must have a special purpose that carries greater significance than other OT laws. Nevertheless, I still see the possibility that they existed along with the other laws for the purpose of creating a unique nation out of Abraham's seed, thereby fulfilling the next step of "the promise." It is painfully obvious that the laws exist today because we know of them. It is also painfully obvious that many of them apply today, because the command to worship only God is true for all time. This is because it is a statement, not a feeling or some other "spiritual following." Even if one claims to follow it spiritually, that one still adheres to a standard that can be written down and winds up then being the same law. I'll try to say it clearly, "IF AN ACTION TAKES PLACE, THEN IT MUST HAVE A DESCRIPTION." Therefore, any idea that it is right to do such and such still has a law to describe it.

My view is that a promise of a saving male child was given to Adam and Eve. Further explanation of how it would take place came with the Abrahamic promise of a nation. This part of the promise obviously comes to fulfillment under Moses, but much isn't added to the promise until the time of David.

When the promise to defeat sin through this saving Davidic, Judean, Israeli, male child, then any laws that served the purpose of making the Jews into a nation have fulfilled their goals.

So the issue is this: WERE THE 10C GIVEN TO DISTINGUISH ISRAEL OR GIVE MORAL DOCTRINE?
Actually, both, but the further question is whether that applies to all of the 10C.

We must also take the time to remember that any OT law, originally given as permanent, cannot be denounced in the NT unless we concede that one of the Testaments is untrustworthy.

 

[Drew]

It is also painfully obvious that many of them apply today, because the command to worship only God is true for all time. This is because it is a statement, not a feeling or some other "spiritual following." Even if one claims to follow it spiritually, that one still adheres to a standard that can be written down and winds up then being the same law. I'll try to say it clearly, "IF AN ACTION TAKES PLACE, THEN IT MUST HAVE A DESCRIPTION." Therefore, any idea that it is right to do such and such still has a law to describe it.

I like the way you say this, but I do not think you are in tune with Paul.

Consider this analogy that I have used before: I love my dog. Even though there may indeed be laws where I live that prohibit me from say, starving my dog, I do not, repeat do not, need any law to tell me to not starve my dog.

I continually feed my dog because I love her, not because some "law" tells me to.

Now, I agree that, as per what you post, I could indeed write down a "law" about feeding one's dog.

But the important distinction is the prescription / description distinction. The "do not starve your dog" principle or law is a description of a behaviout that love, not rule-following, has produced. It is an "after-the-fact" description of how love for a dog plays out in actual behaviour.

The law is not prescriptive - it is not the informing source that determines my behaviour. Love, instead, is the informing source.

 

[Drew]

So the issue is this: WERE THE 10C GIVEN TO DISTINGUISH ISRAEL OR GIVE MORAL DOCTRINE? Actually, both, but the further question is whether that applies to all of the 10C.

I think you have struck on a hugely important point with the reference to "distinguishing Israel". I heartily agree that this was a major reason for giving the Torah. Many do not see this, I suspect. But it is indeed a huge theme in both Old and New Testaments.

We must also take the time to remember that any OT law, originally given as permanent, cannot be denounced in the NT unless we concede that one of the Testaments is untrustworthy.

I suspect that you will not be able to produce any evidence that supports the assertion that Old Testament laws are permanent. I would advise checking out the Hebrew before you post any texts which you believe suggest otherwise.

Besides, if Old Testament laws are permanent, should we still be sacificing in the temple. Please be careful to not simply assert that the ceremonial laws are not permanent. Please make a case as to why you think they are exceptions to the "permanent" rule.

 

[RND]

I like the way you say this, but I do not think you are in tune with Paul.

Consider this analogy that I have used before: I love my dog. Even though there may indeed be laws where I live that prohibit me from say, starving my dog, I do not, repeat do not, need any law to tell me to not starve my dog.

I continually feed my dog because I love her, not because some "law" tells me to.

That's where your analogy is mistaken.

The fact of the matter is that there are laws that require you to feed and care for your dog and we can't ignore that fact. Yet those laws don't apply to those that, because they love their dogs and want to care for them. That's doesn't mean that the law has been removed it means that you don't need the law to obey.

Conversely, the "law"(the Ten Commandments) is still law. Yet it doesn't apply to those that obey it's principles and love the God that gave them. It does apply to those that don't love God and refuse to hear Him.

The law is not prescriptive - it is not the informing source that determines my behaviour. Love, instead, is the informing source.

There are plenty of people that claim they "love" but they don't obey. Those that obey the law understand the reasons behind the law and yet they don't obey the law to be righteous or to be saved but because of He who gave the law out of love!

 

[Drew]

The Ten Commandments were spoken by God - Exodus 20:1, Deut 4:12 & 13
The other laws were spoken by Moses - Exodus 35:4, Deut 4:14

Simply untrue - or at least untrue in the sense that matters.

Here is one example of a law, that is not part of the 10 commandments, whose authoritative source is clearly God:

Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2"You shall also say to the sons of Israel: 'Any man from the sons of Israel or from the aliens sojourning in Israel (A)who gives any of his offspring to Molech, shall surely be put to death; (B)the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

Here is another:

'Hence I have said to you, "You are to possess their land, and I Myself will give it to you to possess it, a land flowing with milk and honey " I am the LORD your God, who has separated you from the peoples. 25'You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean. 26'Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine.

Clearly the source of this law - not part of the 10 commandments - is the Lord, not Moses.

 

[Drew]

If you read each of these scriptures, you would clearly see that the ten commandments were distinct from the laws of Moses.

Not in the sense that's important in the context of this thread. Whether some were written on stone and some on paper, or whether some went into the Ark and some did not, all these laws have God as their originating souce and all were part of the package that Paul, and others, would refer to when they used the term "law".

Don't believe me? Here is proof:

Here in Romans 7, Paul is clearly including the "do not covet" commandment (from the 10 commandments) under what he refers to as "the law":

What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET."

OK, so we know that Paul considers the 10 commandments to be part of "the Law".

Now does Paul consider other things to be part of “the Law†than the 10 commandments? Clearly he does:

In the Law it is written: "Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me," says the Lord.

And there are other examples like this. Let’s remember the distinctions that are [bimportant[/b]. I have no particular objection to any claim that, by some classification scheme, the Law of Moses does not include the 10 commandments.

But the relevant point is this: [b}Paul[/b] uses the term “the Law†to refer to the whole package – 10 commandments, Law of Moses, other things too.

And Paul declares that “the Law¢â‚¬Â has been abolished.

 

[Drew]

Well, of course the ultimate litmus test is the Word of God. By the word, we can see where which laws were given as temporary and which laws are still valid today. 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."

I added the underline. You do realize that one of the 10 commandments is this:

but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you

In the very text from Colossians that you quote. Paul is clear that the Sabbath law has passed away.

This is a proof-text for what I have been asserting - the 10 commandments are part of the package that has been abolished - nailed to the Cross.

 

[RND]

The Ten Commandments were spoken by God - Exodus 20:1, Deut 4:12 & 13
The other laws were spoken by Moses - Exodus 35:4, Deut 4:14

Simply untrue - or at least untrue in the sense that matters.

You mean God didn't speak the Ten Commandments into existence?

Here is one example of a law, that is not part of the 10 commandments, whose authoritative source is clearly God:

Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2"You shall also say to the sons of Israel: 'Any man from the sons of Israel or from the aliens sojourning in Israel (A)who gives any of his offspring to Molech, shall surely be put to death; (B)the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

Here is another:

'Hence I have said to you, "You are to possess their land, and I Myself will give it to you to possess it, a land flowing with milk and honey " I am the LORD your God, who has separated you from the peoples. 25'You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean. 26'Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine.

Clearly the source of this law - not part of the 10 commandments - is the Lord, not Moses.

Did you miss the part Drew where God spoke His Ten Commandments to all the COI so they could hear Him and agree to His commandments and yet instructed Moshe to "You shall also say to the sons of Israel" when it came to communicating the law in the book to the COI?

C'mon Drew, surely you can see the difference right!? You do see the difference between God speaking something directly and indirectly to the COI don't you?

 

[RND]

I added the underline. You do realize that one of the 10 commandments is this:

but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you

In the very text from Colossians that you quote. Paul is clear that the Sabbath law has passed away.

Drew, do you realize how hard it is to nail two stone tablets to a wooden post? Have you ever tried that? Do you realize Drew that when a person was crucified that the Romans usually nailed to the cross a bill announcing why the subject was being crucified?

So what was nailed to the cross of Christ? It was the "the handwriting of ordinances that was against us." Did God use handwriting to engrave those two tables of stone? No, of course not. Were those Ten Commandments against us or were they for our own good? What was "against us?"

Deu 31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

That's right. The book of the law.

This is a proof-text for what I have been asserting - the 10 commandments are part of the package that has been abolished - nailed to the Cross.

Nope. Colossians 2 is a proof text regarding the requirements that are the "traditions of men." See Matthew 15 for a comparison. Were the TC a "tradition of men" or a direct word from God?

 

[Drew]

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.

Really? Let's see what Paul says about about what "obeying the Law" really consist in here in Romans 10:

For (D)Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to (E)everyone who believes. 5For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law (F)shall live by that righteousness. 6But (G)the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: "(H)DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, 'WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?' (that is, to bring Christ down), 7or 'WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE (I)ABYSS?' (that is, to (J)bring Christ up from the dead)." 8But what does it say? "(K)THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and (M)believe in your heart that (N)God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

Now what is Paul saying in this complex passage?

1. In verse 5, Paul recalls a text from Leviticus where the Jew is told: “Obey the Law and you will liveâ€Â.

2. In the rest of this text, Paul says that Christian faith – believing that Jesus is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead is the basis for “getting life†(being saved).

How do we make sense of this? By doing what many are too willing to do here – not take Paul seriously? Let’s not do that. How can we attain life by “obeying the Law†and by believing that Jesus is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead? These seem like two distinct paths to life.

Answer: We conclude that Paul understands that Christian faith is what it means to obey Torah in this, the time of the new covenant.

The quote from Deut 30 – a covenant renewal passage – endorses this interpretation. The written code is heading somewhere, the Torah (the written code) has Christian faith as its goal, hence “Christ is the end of the Lawâ€Â.

What does this all mean? It means that to obey “the Law†in the time of covenant renewal means to demonstrate Christian faith, and not to follow the written code.

And, of course, this coheres perfectly with hte view that the written code of the Law has passed away, replaced by faith as the path to life.

 

[Drew]

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.

You continue to change Paul's words. This has been repeatedly been pointed out to you, but I will point it out for the sake of others.

Paul never, never, never wrote: "where there is no law, there is no sin".

He wrote: "where there is no law, there is no transgression"

Transgression and sin are not the same concepts for Paul - it has already been shown from Romans 5 that sin exists even in the absence of law.

You are engaging in a strawman[ – rewriting what Paul says about law, transgression, and sin and implying that people like me are suggesting that sin is to be tolerated because we believe that the law has been abolished. You would have others believe this;

1. Drew asserts that the Law has been abolished;

2. But Paul says “where there is no law, there is no sinâ€Â

3. This means that Drew thinks there can be no sin since he believes the law is abolished.

4. So, Drew has lowered God’s standards.

Well, yes, Drew does believe the law has been abolished. But Drew is not re-writing Paul. Drew understands that “where there is no law, there is no transgressionâ€Â, but there certainly can be sin.

Not to mention that you know full well that I would respond that the Holy Spirit replaces the law, hardly a lowering of standards.

 

[Drew]

A follow-on:

Transgression, for Paul, refers to the specific event that occurs when some law is broken.

Sin, for Paul, exists even when there is no law (Romans 5)

So sin and transgression are not the same concept, and the abolition of law does not mean that sin is being conveniently done away with as something we need to concern ourselves about.

 

[RND]

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.

Really? Let's see what Paul says about about what "obeying the Law" really consist in here in Romans 10:

For (D)Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to (E)everyone who believes. 5For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law (F)shall live by that righteousness. 6But (G)the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: "(H)DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, 'WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?' (that is, to bring Christ down), 7or 'WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE (I)ABYSS?' (that is, to (J)bring Christ up from the dead)." 8But what does it say? "(K)THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and (M)believe in your heart that (N)God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

Now what is Paul saying in this complex passage?

Oh, Drew - How stubborn to the truth can a man be?

Do you realize that Paul is quoting Deuteronomy in the middle of this passage? Paul is asking the same exact thing that Deuteronomy 30 is asking:

Deu 30:11 ¶ For this commandment which I command thee this day, it [is] not hidden from thee, neither [is] it far off. Deu 30:12 It [is] not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Deu 30:13 Neither [is] it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Deu 30:14 But the word [is] very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. Deu 30:15 ¶ See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; Deu 30:16 In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

The commandment, that God gave, was near and in the heart of the Israelites "I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it."

1. In verse 5, Paul recalls a text from Leviticus where the Jew is told: “Obey the Law and you will liveâ€Â.

Does this negate the law of God Drew?

2. In the rest of this text, Paul says that Christian faith – believing that Jesus is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead is the basis for “getting life†(being saved).

Drew, what Paul is saying is that the law that was given to the COI is kept as a righteousness of faith and that it isn't to be questioned where it came from!

How do we make sense of this? By doing what many are too willing to do here – not take Paul seriously? Let’s not do that. How can we attain life by “obeying the Law†and by believing that Jesus is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead? These seem like two distinct paths to life.

Answer: We conclude that Paul understands that Christian faith is what it means to obey Torah in this, the time of the new covenant.

The quote from Deut 30 – a covenant renewal passage – endorses this interpretation. The written code is heading somewhere, the Torah (the written code) has Christian faith as its goal, hence “Christ is the end of the Lawâ€Â.

What does this all mean? It means that to obey “the Law†in the time of covenant renewal means to demonstrate Christian faith, and not to follow the written code.

What Paul is saying is that the righteousness by faith can't be questioned. You said it yourself, to obey "the law" is to demonstrate Christian faith. Those that DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW are not demonstrating faith! That's why a bank robber can't plead ignorance of the law when he's caught for stealing.

And, of course, this coheres perfectly with hte view that the written code of the Law has passed away, replaced by faith as the path to life.

And what standard of faith is there Drew? Obedience? Obedience to what? That's right.....the word of God.

 

[RND]

A follow-on:

Transgression, for Paul, refers to the specific event that occurs when some law is broken.

Sin, for Paul, exists even when there is no law (Romans 5)

So sin and transgression are not the same concept, and the abolition of law does not mean that sin is being conveniently done away with as something we need to concern ourselves about.

:o

Sin is the transgression of the law. It's as simple as that. :yes I really think all you are doing is attempting to save face in light of the fact that you have been shown to be in error and you aren't doing a very good job of it.