(Some) Under The Law?

[Cyberseeker]

What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come … So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
(Galatians 3:19,24-25)

The law was added temporarily at Sinai (verse 17) and it lasted until the ‘seed’ (Christ) came. After that, we as believers are no longer under the law.

Now, my question is this: Was the law annulled for all people when the seed came? Or was it annulled for believers only?

I.O.W. does God consider the law still is force for unbelievers and annulled (individually) as they come to faith?

Cyberseeker

 

[seekandlisten]

What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come … So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
(Galatians 3:19,24-25)

The law was added temporarily at Sinai (verse 17) and it lasted until the ‘seed’ (Christ) came. After that, we as believers are no longer under the law.

Now, my question is this: Was the law annulled for all people when the seed came? Or was it annulled for believers only?

I.O.W. does God consider the law still is force for unbelievers and annulled (individually) as they come to faith?
Cyberseeker

Just some of my thoughts on this matter. The seed took the place of the law as our means to salvation. When one accepts the fact that the seed, Jesus, paid the penalty for sin, death, once and for all, the law is then written in one's heart. It is not a written set of rules and law anymore under the new convenant. We are judged on the intentions in our heart when we stand before God. Now what does this mean for all who came before Jesus? This I do not know but I would assume from what I understand of the bible and God that all will stand before God and since mankind before Christ did not keep the law they would fall under the new covenant as well and be judged on what was in their hearts as well. Thoughts?

 

[tim-from-pa]

For a quick reply, those who have not placed their faith in Christ are under the Law yet, or I should more accurately say that those under the Law are those of Israel who were covenanted to it, whereas Gentiles who never received the covenant of the Law will still be judged by that standard because it is the righteousness of God.

The idea that one is under the New Covenant is when they identify with Christ, they die with him, and thus the Old Covenant is no longer binding, but are now free to join with the new resurrected husband, or Covenant.

Keep in mind the standards of the Law are not done away with. I know of no commandment for example that eradicated the command "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt no steal".

When misinformed Christians say we "are no longer under the Law", what they are misinterpreting the scripture that says in effect that we are no longer under the curse of the Law. In other words, curses for disobedience were taken at the cross, but the standards of righteousness still apply.

So, what really changed is one's old fleshy adherence to the Law vs. faith in Christ and putting on the righteousness of Christ instead of self-righteousness.

If one rejects Christ, then they are basing their righteousness on self-effort and therefore the same mechanism as one who followed the Law and therefore "under the Law" in that sense. The standards of the Law will be applied to all. Unbelievers will fail and obtain the curse, which is being sent to the Lake of Fire to be eternally destroyed. Believers have the curse taken by Christ, because He fulfilled the righteousness of the Law.

If anyone wants scriptures to these ideas, I can easily get them.

 

[Drew]

Now, my question is this: Was the law annulled for all people when the seed came? Or was it annulled for believers only?

I.O.W. does God consider the law still is force for unbelievers and annulled (individually) as they come to faith?

Let's remember, of course, that the law was only ever given to the Jews. So I assume that you are asking whether non-believing Jews are still supposed to observe the law.

I believe that the answer is "no". One reason for this lies in the reason why the law was given in the first. I am convinced that, strangely, the law was given to make Israel more sinful, not less. And, more specifically, I believe that the effect of giving the law to Israel was to draw ("lure") sin, understood specifically as a personal power or agency, into Israel. Having been "localized" in Israel, it was then focused into one person - Jesus, acting as Israel on the cross. Remember, Romans 8 tells us that it was sin, not Jesus, that was condemned on the cross.

This is a huge topic and I have only stated my position, not defended it. But to the extent that it is correct to see the law as functioning to lure sin into a position where it can be defeated on the cross, we should indeed see the purpose of the law having been fulfilled through the defeat of sin on that very cross.

And therefore the law is entirely retired, having successfully achieved its purpose. No one should be observing it now.

 

[(THE)]

What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come … So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
(Galatians 3:19,24-25)

The law was added temporarily at Sinai (verse 17) and it lasted until the ‘seed’ (Christ) came. After that, we as believers are no longer under the law.

Now, my question is this: Was the law annulled for all people when the seed came? Or was it annulled for believers only?

I.O.W. does God consider the law still is force for unbelievers and annulled (individually) as they come to faith?

Cyberseeker

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

SO if the law is not abolished and the law is not destroyed then it is still in effect and we should obey it.......But when you fall short we are to repent to the Father thru Christ.....

Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law

If there is no law then you cant break the law,,,,,and if you cant break the law there is no need of repentance......anyone on this forum that has repented has broken the law,,thus the law is still in effect,,,follow it....

 

[Drew]

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Hello.

I suggest that you may be reading Jesus' statement in a way that involves you making certain assumptions. I think that Jesus' words can be read thus:

Do not think that I have come to tell you that the law was a bad thing to be overturned, but rather understand that I come to bring it to an end by doing on the cross what the law sought to do all along.

I suggest that this interpretation honours Jesus' words and yet allows us to see that the Law of Moses has been retired.

 

[tim-from-pa]

I suggest that this interpretation honours Jesus' words and yet allows us to see that the Law of Moses has been retired.

So, it's OK to murder now because the Law's been retired?

 

[seekandlisten]

I suggest that this interpretation honours Jesus' words and yet allows us to see that the Law of Moses has been retired.

So, it's OK to murder now because the Law's been retired?

Can you love your neighbor and still kill them?

 

[(THE)]

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Hello.

I suggest that you may be reading Jesus' statement in a way that involves you making certain assumptions. I think that Jesus' words can be read thus:

Do not think that I have come to tell you that the law was a bad thing to be overturned, but rather understand that I come to bring it to an end by doing on the cross what the law sought to do all along.

I suggest that this interpretation honours Jesus' words and yet allows us to see that the Law of Moses has been retired.

Hey,,,,

You got that from this

Mh nomishte oti hlqon katalusai ton nomon h touV profhtaV: ouk hlqon katalusai alla plhrwsai.

I believe the translation from the Greek here is preety accurate no matter what bible your using,,,I prefer the KJ but here are a few others....

New International Version (©1984)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

World English Bible
"Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill.

Webster's Bible Translation
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

KJ
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

I have seen many bibles and many manuscripts and have yet to come across any that contain the wording "Do not think that I have come to tell you that the law was a bad thing to be overturned, but rather understand that I come to bring it to an end by doing on the cross what the law sought to do all along"

This reaks very much of someone attempting to prove Christ destroyed the law by directly changing scripture.....If able can you take each word back to the greek and show why this verse should be read the way you have provided?????

 

[Joe67]

Now, my question is this: Was the law annulled for all people when the seed came? Or was it annulled for believers only?

I.O.W. does God consider the law still is force for unbelievers and annulled (individually) as they come to faith?

Let's remember, of course, that the law was only ever given to the Jews. So I assume that you are asking whether non-believing Jews are still supposed to observe the law.

I believe that the answer is "no". One reason for this lies in the reason why the law was given in the first. I am convinced that, strangely, the law was given to make Israel more sinful, not less. And, more specifically, I believe that the effect of giving the law to Israel was to draw ("lure") sin, understood specifically as a personal power or agency, into Israel. Having been "localized" in Israel, it was then focused into one person - Jesus, acting as Israel on the cross. Remember, Romans 8 tells us that it was sin, not Jesus, that was condemned on the cross.

This is a huge topic and I have only stated my position, not defended it. But to the extent that it is correct to see the law as functioning to lure sin into a position where it can be defeated on the cross, we should indeed see the purpose of the law having been fulfilled through the defeat of sin on that very cross.

And therefore the law is entirely retired, having successfully achieved its purpose. No one should be observing it now.

Drew,

Your presentation in your post that the law was given that sin might increase is a very vital understanding that the Christian community needs to gain the victory over the wicked one ( John's testimony ).

Would you state some Scriptural witnesses to this understanding?

Thank you.

Joe

 

[(THE)]

Now, my question is this: Was the law annulled for all people when the seed came? Or was it annulled for believers only?

I.O.W. does God consider the law still is force for unbelievers and annulled (individually) as they come to faith?

Let's remember, of course, that the law was only ever given to the Jews. So I assume that you are asking whether non-believing Jews are still supposed to observe the law.

I believe that the answer is "no". One reason for this lies in the reason why the law was given in the first. I am convinced that, strangely, the law was given to make Israel more sinful, not less. And, more specifically, I believe that the effect of giving the law to Israel was to draw ("lure") sin, understood specifically as a personal power or agency, into Israel. Having been "localized" in Israel, it was then focused into one person - Jesus, acting as Israel on the cross. Remember, Romans 8 tells us that it was sin, not Jesus, that was condemned on the cross.

This is a huge topic and I have only stated my position, not defended it. But to the extent that it is correct to see the law as functioning to lure sin into a position where it can be defeated on the cross, we should indeed see the purpose of the law having been fulfilled through the defeat of sin on that very cross.

And therefore the law is entirely retired, having successfully achieved its purpose. No one should be observing it now.

Drew,

Your presentation in your post that the law was given that sin might increase is a very vital understanding that the Christian community needs to gain the victory over the wicked one ( John's testimony ).

Would you state some Scriptural witnesses to this understanding?

Thank you.

Joe

Indeed I would love to know where it is written that the law was given that sin might increase

The law was given so sin might increase,,,,,,am I the only one that see's something wrong with this???

 

[tim-from-pa]

I suggest that this interpretation honours Jesus' words and yet allows us to see that the Law of Moses has been retired.

So, it's OK to murder now because the Law's been retired?

Can you love your neighbor and still kill them?

Exactly. So the standards of the Law is still in effect. The Law is not done away with. I rest my case.

 

[(THE)]

God/Christ has done many things for us,,,one of the things is giving us right to approach God and repent when we break the law.....

The whole reason for repentance is when you trangress the law......

if there is no law then why do I spend so much time repenting

maybe next time I will tell God his laws arent in effect and I can do what I want,,,,yea right that'll be the day.........

 

[Drew]

I suggest that this interpretation honours Jesus' words and yet allows us to see that the Law of Moses has been retired.

So, it's OK to murder now because the Law's been retired?

No one, least of all me, is saying this.

This incorrect reasoning has appeared before. Let me be as clear as I can: It is simply incorrect to suggest that the absence of a prescriptive law against X means that it is acceptable to do X.

 

[GodspromisesRyes]

What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come … So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
(Galatians 3:19,24-25)

The law was added temporarily at Sinai (verse 17) and it lasted until the ‘seed’ (Christ) came. After that, we as believers are no longer under the law.

Now, my question is this: Was the law annulled for all people when the seed came? Or was it annulled for believers only?

I.O.W. does God consider the law still is force for unbelievers and annulled (individually) as they come to faith?

Cyberseeker

yes all unbeleivers are under the law until they come to the seed- Christ by faith. they are bound and judged under the law and this is why not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law until heaven and earth pass away- that is when all unbelievers will pass away and it is the wicked the law was made for in the first place we are told in tim.

 

[Drew]

I have seen many bibles and many manuscripts and have yet to come across any that contain the wording "Do not think that I have come to tell you that the law was a bad thing to be overturned, but rather understand that I come to bring it to an end by doing on the cross what the law sought to do all along"

This reaks very much of someone attempting to prove Christ destroyed the law by directly changing scripture.....If able can you take each word back to the greek and show why this verse should be read the way you have provided?????

No. You have misrepresented what I said.

Despite what many wish were true, this saying of Jesus, read in isolation, is actually ambiguous. It could be read as saying, among other things, that the Law is still to be applied. It could also be read in a way that has Jesus saying that the law has come to an end.

When I drive my car to Montreal, I have a goal: getting to Montreal. Do I continue driving once I get there? No. My purpose has been fulfilled, so I stop driving.

I believe that Jesus is saying that His life "fulfills" the Law in this very same sense -a sense which has the Law ceasing to be in force.

 

[Drew]

Indeed I would love to know where it is written that the law was given that sin might increase

The law was given so sin might increase,,,,,,am I the only one that see's something wrong with this???

Well, I think Paul saw nothing wrong with the idea - that's who I got it from.

In Romans 5:20, Paul says this:

The Law came in so that the transgression would increase

The "so that" suggests divine intent. Who gave the law? God, Why? To cause transgression to increase. If Paul had meant that the Law was given so that sins would be revealed, why didn't he say that.

And from Romans 7:

So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. 13Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin,in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.

Again, we need to let Paul tell us what the Torah does, and not let our traditions over-rule him. In the last part of verse 13, Paul asserts that sin becomes utterly sinful through the effect of the Law. This is effectively a way of saying that sin gets worse.

People will invariably try to bend what he is saying. He is not saying "that through the law my knowledge of sin increased". He is saying that sin itself "got worse" through the action of the law.

And there is lots of other evidence, not least from Romans 9 and 11.

 

[Drew]

maybe next time I will tell God his laws arent in effect and I can do what I want,,,,yea right that'll be the day.........

Well, the apostle Paul thinks that the Law is no longer in force:

For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,

Although people will do various dances to avoid it, Paul is clearly talking about the Law of Moses here and declarings its end. It was the Law of Moses that marked out the Jew as distinct from the Gentile and it makes perfect sense to argue, as Paul does, that the uniting of the Jew and Gentile is achieved by abolishing the thing that divided them in the first place - the law of Moses.

 

[Drew]

...this is why not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law until heaven and earth pass away- that is when all unbelievers will pass away and it is the wicked the law was made for in the first place we are told in tim.

You forgot the rest - until all is fulfilled.

Jesus was a product of his times and culture and I suggest that we in the modern west have been a little careless in understanding the implications of this. On a surface reading, Matthew 5:18 is indeed a challenge to those of us who think that, at least in a certain specific sense, Torah has been retired. Those who hold the opposing view have their own challenges to face, such as Ephesians 2:15 (and Romans 7) which, to me, unambiguously declare the abolition of the Torah, at least in terms of “rules and regulationsâ€.

Here is Matthew 5:17-19 in the NASB:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven

How can one read this text and possibly think that the prescriptions of the Torah do not remain in force, given that heaven and earth are still here?

I think that there is a way to faithfully read this text and still claim that Torah was retired 2000 years ago as Paul seems to so forcefully argue that it was (e.g. Eph 2:15). My proposal (building, of course, on the ideas of others – I am no Bible scholar) hinges on the assertion that in Hebrew culture apocalyptic “end of the world†language was commonly used in a specifically metaphorical mode for the specific purposes of investing commonplace events with their theological significance.

This is not mere speculation – we have concrete evidence that this was so. Isaiah writes:

10For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises
And the moon will not shed its light

What was going on? Babylon was being destroyed, never to be rebuilt. There are other examples of such metaphorical “end of the world†imagery being used to describe much more “mundane†events within the present space-time manifold.

So it is possible that Jesus is not referring to the destruction of matter, space, and time as the criteria for the retirement of the Law. But what might He mean here? What is the real event for which “heaven and earth passing away†is an apocalyptic metaphor.

I would appeal to the phrase “until all is accomplished†and point the reader to Jesus’ proclamation that “It is accomplished!†as He breathed His last on the Cross. Perhaps this is what Jesus is referring to. I believe that seeing it that way allows us to take Paul at his word in his many statements which clearly denote the work of Jesus as the point in time at which Torah was retired.

Of course, the argument here is only sketch, but I present the above as a plausibility argument that there may be a way to legitimately read Jesus here as not declaring that the Torah will remain in force basically to the end of time.

 

[tim-from-pa]

This incorrect reasoning has appeared before. Let me be as clear as I can: It is simply incorrect to suggest that the absence of a prescriptive law against X means that it is acceptable to do X.

Nice quote, but where in the bible does it say this? I'm not out to follow after Bohemian thought no matter how nice it sounds. The Law's standards are still in effect. The Law is the righteousness of God and is not absent, but in every wise present today.