The Law, works and keeping his comandments

[Jethro Bodine]

Yes.

JLB, I don't know how this is not a direct answer to my direct question.

And thank you, chessman, for that. It doesn't happen often in these forums, lol.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see you explaining that the way the requirements for a Day of Atonement has gone away (the effort of our way), not the required fulfillment of a Day of Atonement.

 

[reba]

Some how God is supposed to fit into our thoughts of which dispensation He can do what in.

 

[chessman]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see you explaining that the way the requirements for a Day of Atonement has gone away (the effort of our way), not the required fulfillment of a Day of Atonement.

You are not wrong.

Granny’s got a pot of possum bellies on, in the kitchen for you. J

It would seem that if the fulfillment of The Law were "gone", "abolished", "destroyed", etc. then we are left with no Savior except ourselves and those methods. And then, what do you know…, Christ died for no purpose.

If Jesus Christ had only one purpose in His incarnation it would be what?

“Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But for this purpose [His sacrifice] I have come to this hour.​

(John 12:27 ESV)

And when the time came for their purification according to the Law of Moses, they brought him [Jesus as a baby] up to Jerusalem to present him [Jesus] to the Lord (Luke 2:22 ESV)​

Who says God doesn’t have a sense of humor. At least if you like irony.

So the crowd answered him, “We have heard from the Law that the Christ remains forever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?”​

(John 12:34 ESV)

Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” (Luke 24:44 ESV)​

Like this:

Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him. Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; for they [The Pharisees] loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God. (John 12:41-43 ESV)​

The obligation of literal Mosaic law--the way of doing those things--is gone. A new way of doing those things has appeared and made the literal way obsolete.

Would you say that “the glory that comes from man” included a literal Mosaic law being kept rather piously it seems, by the Pharisees of Jesus’ day?

Versus the heartfelt Mosaic Law being kept by, oh I don’t know, Moses or Aaron?

And Moses said to the congregation, “This is the thing that the LORD has commanded to be done.”(Leviticus 8:5 ESV)…​

Moses washes then anointed Aaron (with water and oil only, not blood) then the same for tabernacle itself. i.e that first priest and the tabernacle had already been consecrated. Yet there needed to be more. …

And he killed it [a bull], and Moses took the blood, and with his finger put it on the horns of the altar around it and purified the altar and poured out the blood at the base of the altar and consecrated it to make atonement for it. (Leviticus 8:15 ESV)​

…

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Corinthians 10:16 ESV)​

Humm, The cup of blessing that we bless is it not a participation in ____________? Can't fill in the blank with a work of Man, or a Law of Moses. I digress.

how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. (Hebrews 9:14 ESV)​

Humm, “dead works”???

Remember, he’s already compared “the blood of goats/calves” as being inadequate (compared to Jesus’ one time sacrifice (v 12-13), that is) and talked about Aaron and that the “first covenant had regulations for worship”, v 9:1 .

I know you’ve already pointed out Hebrews’ answer in general. You might get a piece of Granny’s good ole hot apple pie with that possum, you keep this upJ

But it seems that verses 9:1-14 are pretty clear, given what Hebrews says in verse 6:1 where this same term is used “dead works”.

Yes, even though it says “dead works”. What does the author mean by that? “abolished works”? I say no way. Look at verses 6:1 where this term is used:

Hebrews 6:1 (ESV) 6 Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,​

So what’s he talking about here? Well one thing is “dead works” = elementary doctrine (yea even it pointed toward Christ)=first covenant’s regulations for worship (v 9:1). Yep, picking back up the specific argument all the way from 6:1 and concluding in v 9:14 with the blood of Christ. Upps, actually verse 14 concludes with "The Living God". Thank God.

The point is (and always has been) the BLOOD OF CHRIST.

But hay, if God allowed Moses and Aaron and a bunch after them, to sprinkle some cow blood on an altar a long time ago while all the while accepting their belief in Him for their righteousness (just like He did Abraham), who am I to cry foul? After all, Jesus is God.

Obviously this is yet another passage (especially considering the author’s previous mention of Aaron in v4) that explains the fulfillment of the Law (first covenant, that elementary doctrine, that foundation, those old dead works, etc.) not its destruction due to Christ (nothing else).

Besides Jesus’ other obvious statement about fulfilling the Law versus abolishing it.

 

[JLB]

JLB, I don't know how this is not a direct answer to my direct question.

And thank you, chessman, for that. It doesn't happen often in these forums, lol.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see you explaining that the way the requirements for a Day of Atonement has gone away (the effort of our way), not the required fulfillment of a Day of Atonement.

It's no where near a direct answer.

His answer was a good answer that Salvation was seen in the OT.

His answer was a general overview of all scripture being good for teaching.

But nowhere is the day of Atonement mentioned in his answer, nor is there an Old Testament scripture referring to the day of atonement.


JLB

 

[JLB]

I thought I did answer it. Or rather that Gal 2:16 did.

I'll ask JB; did you mean the "Day of Atonement" in your question to distinctly point to the 10th day of the Seventh month (Lev 23:27) on the Levitical priest’s calendar or more broadly to a day in the future whereby all His Elect will be made at one with God?

Galatians 2:16 (ESV) yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
​

Would not “the works of the law” that were carried out on this special day by a Levite Priest be included in what Paul means here by “works of the law”? It seems rather simple to see that’s exactly what Paul meant. If not, then what in world did he mean by “works of the law” if not such things as the Levites carried out, and many more like it (like circumcision)? And if that is what Paul meant (and I think it clearly is from the context of Gal 2) then the correlation to Jesus Christ’ssacrifice [i.e. Savior, Messiah to a Jewish ear] is again plain and simple. But if it [Jewish laws versus Christ’s sacrifice] is not correlated enough already just with verse 16, then Paul goes on to distinctly point this truth out :

Galatians 2:20-21 (ESV) I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
​

So the correlation is clear. If righteousness were through [the Day of Atonement, sacrifice of animals, circumcision, __fill in the blank with anything man can do], then Christ died for no purpose.

I'll ask JB; did you mean the "Day of Atonement" in your question

I didn't ask the question.

Our discussion is about how WE fulfill the requirements for the day of atonement.

Here is what Jethro said -

We satisfy the requirements for The Day of Atonement itself when we believe in Christ who, at the appointed time, carried his own blood behind the curtain in the Tabernacle in heaven and made atonement for the people of God, Him being both the sacrifice offered, and the Appointed Son of the High Priest who offers that sacrifice.

JLB

 

[JLB]

This is what I've been saying.

So how is it that you argue that faith in his sacrifice doesn't uphold the law for all believers, except that you refuse to acknowledge that I've been plainly saying the law is upheld in regard to what the law requires (blood, rest, etc.), not upheld in regard to the WAY of the law of Moses, a,k.a. the first covenant (the way, the system, for fulfilling the requirements of God)?

Maybe your fundamental problem is you think that the requirements of the law of Moses., and the first covenant are exactly one and the same thing. They are not. The Bible itself is where we see the distinction made between the two. Faith in Christ upholds (satisfies, meets, etc.) the requirements of the law of Moses, not does away with them. But faith in Christ lays aside the first covenant, the WAY the requirements of God are to be fulfilled. These two things are very distinct teachings of the Bible. We see this in what Jesus said, too. He said he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. But he did allude to how his coming will make it possible for some things to 'disappear' from the law, those things we now know to be the literal first covenant ways the requirements of the law are upheld, not the requirements of the law themselves.

Why are we trying to get the Church to satisfy the requirements of a covenant that Jesus Christ came to set the Children of Israel free from?

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.


NO LONGER A SLAVE!

What does that mean?

22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar-- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children-- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

Galatians 5 -

1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.

13 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

How does faith in Christ and walking in the fruit of the Spirit--the very things I've been defending here--mean that doing that equals trying to keep the first covenant, making a person a slave to the law, making them a child of the bond woman, and entangling them in a yoke of bondage. Make the connection for me. You won't be able to because your post is wholly inapplicable to what I've been saying. I'm at a loss as to why you can't understand what I've been saying.

Christ fulfilled the requirements of the law of Moses. At the same time, he made obsolete the first covenant way of fulfilling those requirements and introduced a new way to fulfill the same requirements of the law. But you won't get this if you fail to acknowledge the difference the Bible makes between the requirements of the law and the literal stipulations of the first covenant for how those requirements were to be fulfilled (via the temple, the sacrifices, the Levitical priesthood, etc...).

What 'went away' was the first covenant and that way of serving the requirements of God, not the requirements of God. If that was not true, Hebrews would not explain to us how Christ is the fulfillment for the requirements for the Day of Atonement, not the destruction of the Day of Atonement as you are suggesting.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Go back to the way of the first covenant--that is how you make yourself a slave to the law. But accepting the new way of this New Covenant--faith in Christ's work as the fulfillment of the requirements of the law--does not put you in bondage to the law. It does the exact opposite. It sets you free from the never-ending cycle of literal worship and service of the first covenant, because Christ is the forever fulfillment of the requirements served by the old way of the that first covenant of temple, priest, and sacrifice.

 

[JLB]

How does faith in Christ and walking in the fruit of the Spirit--the very things I've been defending here--mean that doing that equals trying to keep the first covenant, making a person a slave to the law, making them a child of the bond woman, and entangling them in a yoke of bondage. Make the connection for me. You won't be able to because your post is wholly inapplicable to what I've been saying. I'm at a loss as to why you can't understand what I've been saying.

Christ fulfilled the requirements of the law of Moses. At the same time, he made obsolete the first covenant way of fulfilling those requirements and introduced a new way to fulfill the same requirements of the law. But you won't get this if you fail to acknowledge the difference the Bible makes between the requirements of the law and the literal stipulations of the first covenant for how those requirements were to be fulfilled (via the temple, the sacrifices, the Levitical priesthood, etc...).

What 'went away' was the first covenant and that way of serving the requirements of God, not the requirements of God. If that was not true, Hebrews would not explain to us how Christ is the fulfillment for the requirements for the Day of Atonement, not the destruction of the Day of Atonement as you are suggesting.

How does faith in Christ and walking in the fruit of the Spirit--the very things I've been defending here--mean that doing that equals trying to keep the first covenant, making a person a slave to the law, making them a child of the bond woman, and entangling them in a yoke of bondage.

You are not defending walking in the Spirit, you are defending the idea that Gentile Christians are required to establish the law of Moses.

Don't try to change the subject.

My question again -

Why are we trying to get the Church to satisfy the requirements of a covenant that Jesus Christ came to set the Children of Israel free from?

Here is the scripture where my question comes from -

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

If Jesus Christ came to those "born under the law", to redeem those "who were under the law", why are you advocating that Gentile Christians are required to UPHOLD the law.

You have never addressed my statement from Romans 3:31, that it was those who were under the law, that were required to uphold the law of Moses.

A person has to BE UNDER the law in order to UPHOLD IT.

Abraham walked in God's Presence [Spirit] as he was commanded, 430 years before the law of Moses.

We are called to walk in the Spirit.

What 'went away' was the first covenant and that way of serving the requirements of God, not the requirements of God.

Now your getting close. You see what Paul says here in this verse. You have to start distancing yourself from your previously held belief, that we are required to uphold the Law of Moses.

For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage,

The requirements of God's Law is what Abraham walked in, not the requirements of the law of Moses.

The NUMBER ONE REQUIREMENT that enabled Abraham to walk in God's laws, commandments, statues is this:

Walk before Me and be blameless...

Walk in My Presence and be perfect.

Walk in the Spirit and you will not fulfill the lust's of the flesh.


JLB

 

[JLB]

Go back to the way of the first covenant--that is how you make yourself a slave to the law. But accepting the new way of this New Covenant--faith in Christ's work as the fulfillment of the requirements of the law--does not put you in bondage to the law. It does the exact opposite. It sets you free from the never-ending cycle of literal worship and service of the first covenant, because Christ is the forever fulfillment of the requirements served by the old way of the that first covenant of temple, priest, and sacrifice.

Paul is defining requirements in the law of Moses, concerning certain food laws, special clothing for the priests, special days, weeks and years that were specifically required for the children of Israel by God, as summed up in this verse, which culminate from previous chapters.

These are the statutes and judgments and laws which the Lord made between Himself and the children of Israel on Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses. Leviticus 26:46


Killing or disfiguring your neighbor because your neighbor did this to you was required by Moses Law.

19 If a man causes disfigurement of his neighbor, as he has done, so shall it be done to him-- 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done to him. 21 And whoever kills an animal shall restore it; but whoever kills a man shall be put to death. Leviticus 24:19-21

Are you teaching me that if I walk in the Spirit, then I am fulfilling a requirement kill or disfigure my neighbor because he has done this to me.

It is quite the opposite.

By walking in the Spirit, I now have the love of God to forgive my neighbor for what he has done to me.


As Gentile Christians we are no more obligated or required to keep special days, any more than we are required to "stone our neighbor" for NOT KEEPING the Sabbath.

You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. Exodus 31:14

God's Law for all mankind is not the same as Moses Law that was for the children of Israel through Moses at Sinai, even though the Torah as well as the law of Moses was written by the same man, Moses.

You can see the difference in this verse. 21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? Galatians 4:21

One is referring to Moses law, the other is referring to the Torah, which contains the law of Moses, as well as the account of Abraham.


JLB

 

[Deborah13]

Paul is defining requirements in the law of Moses, concerning certain food laws, special clothing for the priests, special days, weeks and years that were specifically required for the children of Israel by God, as summed up in this verse, which culminate from previous chapters.

These are the statutes and judgments and laws which the Lord made between Himself and the children of Israel on Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses. Leviticus 26:46


Killing or disfiguring your neighbor because your neighbor did this to you was required by Moses Law.

19 If a man causes disfigurement of his neighbor, as he has done, so shall it be done to him-- 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done to him. 21 And whoever kills an animal shall restore it; but whoever kills a man shall be put to death. Leviticus 24:19-21

Are you teaching me that if I walk in the Spirit, then I am fulfilling a requirement kill or disfigure my neighbor because he has done this to me.

It is quite the opposite.

By walking in the Spirit, I now have the love of God to forgive my neighbor for what he has done to me.


As Gentile Christians we are no more obligated or required to keep special days, any more than we are required to "stone our neighbor" for NOT KEEPING the Sabbath.

You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. Exodus 31:14

God's Law for all mankind is not the same as Moses Law that was for the children of Israel through Moses at Sinai, even though the Torah as well as the law of Moses was written by the same man, Moses.

You can see the difference in this verse. 21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? Galatians 4:21

One is referring to Moses law, the other is referring to the Torah, which contains the law of Moses, as well as the account of Abraham.


JLB

Well said, JLB.
God's Law existed way before the Law of Moses. When Cain killed Abel he knew he had broken God's commands. He didn't need laws written on stone to know.
That is why all men are without excuse and God is just in His judgment over all men.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You are not defending walking in the Spirit, you are defending the idea that Gentile Christians are required to establish the law of Moses.

Don't try to change the subject.

My question again -

Why are we trying to get the Church to satisfy the requirements of a covenant that Jesus Christ came to set the Children of Israel free from?

I'm not (that's my answer, so don't say I didn't answer again). The first covenant of temple, priesthood, and sacrifice has ended. What continues is the lawful requirement for a Temple, Priesthood, and Sacrifice. Do you want to argue the point?

I've already said that Hebrews says the first covenant of temple, priesthood, and sacrifice doesn't have to be followed anymore. Instead, we fulfill a New Covenant of Temple, Priesthood, and Sacrifice. If you disagree, show me chapter and verse that says otherwise. And when you do that, I will show you where it says we have a New Covenant that serves the requirements found in the law of Moses for a Temple, Priesthood, and Sacrifice--not like the old ones, but a new Temple, and Priesthood, and Sacrifice. A new WAY to fulfill the lawful requirements for a Temple, Priesthood, and Sacrifice. Did I lose you again, or do you understand what I just said? You don't have to agree with what I said. I'm asking if you even understand what I just said. If you understand what I just said, and you don't agree, show me where it says that Christ and his Body are not the new Temple, Priesthood, and Sacrifice that the law requires be established for the people of God.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Well said, JLB.
God's Law existed way before the Law of Moses. When Cain killed Abel he knew he had broken God's commands. He didn't need laws written on stone to know.
That is why all men are without excuse and God is just in His judgment over all men.

So, Debra, when I don't murder, have I upheld the requirements of the law of Moses, or have I violated them, cast them out, made them vanish, etc....?

(Don't be surprised when you feel the compulsion rise up inside of you to say we keep that requirement in a new way.)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Here is the scripture where my question comes from -

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

If Jesus Christ came to those "born under the law", to redeem those "who were under the law", why are you advocating that Gentile Christians are required to UPHOLD the law.

Because Paul says when we walk in the Spirit we do not violate the law and become subject to the condemnation of the law ("...if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.." Galatians 5:18 NIV
"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus...he condemned sin in the flesh,4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." Romans 8:1,3-4 NIV).

When we have faith, and that faith finds it's expression in love for others (a.k.a 'walking in the Spirit'), we are removed from the condemnation of the law. IOW, we are not under the law when we do that. Love upholds the law, not destroys it. Meaning the law of Moses as you have acknowledged.

 

[Deborah13]

So, Debra, when I don't murder, have I upheld the requirements of the law of Moses, or have I violated them, cast them out, made them vanish, etc....?

(Don't be surprised when you feel the compulsion rise up inside of you to say we keep that requirement in a new way.)

Jethro, God said He wrote His laws on our hearts. I believe these are the laws of God that existed from the very beginning, probably from the foundations of the world. Because I know it that when Cain murdered Abel that law against murder existed then, it was restated in the Law of Moses. Not everything in the Law of Moses was always a part of God's laws.
When I walk in the Spirit I fulfill God's laws that have always existed, not the Law of Moses.

Deborah is my real name and Deborah is the legal spelling but Deb is fine for short.

 

[JLB]

So, Debra, when I don't murder, have I upheld the requirements of the law of Moses, or have I violated them, cast them out, made them vanish, etc....?

Do not Murder is God's Law that Moses wrote about in his account of the Garden.

This Law was in the earth long before Moses was born.

This means that just because Moses Law has vanished away, we are still accountable to God's Law that are in the earth.

The Law that Adam violated, that brought all of us under the dominion of sin, was partaking of knowledge apart from God.

Think about that.

That is why The Requirement that enables us to keep the others is abiding in God, or partaking of the life of God or walking in the presence of God which is to say walking in the Spirit of God.

Disobeying this requirement, ensures that you will fail at the rest of the requirements.

That is why Obedience is the standard of righteousness.

Obeying His Voice, to "walk before Him", is the Law.

That Law was from the beginning.

That Command is what Abraham obeying that kept him in righteousness. Not the words of Moses law, but walking with the Lord.

You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

Man shall not live by bread alone, but on every word [Rhema] that proceeds out of the mouth of God.


JLB


Remember: We agree on almost 99% of what we are wrangling over. What we are wrangling over is the 1%.


I still think you hold the best post on any Christian Forum.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You have never addressed my statement from Romans 3:31, that it was those who were under the law, that were required to uphold the law of Moses.

Actually I did, but it's apparent you're either not reading my posts, or you simply do not understand them, let alone can agree with them.

A person has to BE UNDER the law in order to UPHOLD IT.

Not when the context of 'under the law' is 'the condemnation of the law'.

I find it interesting that somehow we are under a universal law of 'do not murder', for example, but as soon as it gets written down it's no longer the universal law of God being commanded. Very ridiculous.

Abraham walked in God's Presence [Spirit] as he was commanded, 430 years before the law of Moses.

We are called to walk in the Spirit.

Read Galatians 5 for the part about walking in the Spirit that you do not understand yet.

We all know and agree that 'walking in the Spirit' includes God graciously guiding us by his Spirit in our hearts bringing to memory what we've been taught in the written Word, and him giving us power to obey it by that same Spirit, but walking by the Spirit also includes WHAT specifically you are doing. Walking by Spirit is as much as WHAT you obey as it is how you obey. The church is real good at bragging about the 'how' (that is by the power of the Spirit within), but seem virtually clueless as to WHAT walking by the Spirit actually is. Even though Galatians 5 plainly tells us. Somehow the Spirit of God let them down and didn't tell them what they are so sure doesn't have to be read or taught to them by someone else.

"16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality,impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other." (Galatians 5:16-26 NIV)

From the passage above we can see that 'walking by the Spirit' is synonomous with walking in the fruit of the Spirit and not in the dead fruit and works of the flesh. But so many in the church will insist 'walking by the Spirit' is a supernatural teaching method that replaced written words and human teachers outright, being completely ignorant of WHAT walking in the Spirit is and looks like.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jethro, God said He wrote His laws on our hearts. I believe these are the laws of God that existed from the very beginning, probably from the foundations of the world. Because I know it that when Cain murdered Abel that law against murder existed then, it was restated in the Law of Moses. Not everything in the Law of Moses was always a part of God's laws.
When I walk in the Spirit I fulfill God's laws that have always existed, not the Law of Moses.

Deborah is my real name and Deborah is the legal spelling but Deb is fine for short.

Just so I understand, you're saying that I DON'T satisfy the requirements of the law of Moses when I 'do not murder', correct? (How is that possible, except that you're confusing the old WAY we uphold that (eternal) requirement of law with the WAY we now uphold that law?)

If I don't uphold the law of Moses when I 'do not murder', then what does Paul mean when he says that faith upholds the law (of Moses, as both me and JLB now agree he is talking about)? And why is this upholding only for the Jews, not gentiles? Christ only died to set gentiles free from the law (as you mean that)? Really?

You've got the floor. Explain.

 

[JLB]

Because Paul says when we walk in the Spirit we do not violate the law and become subject to the condemnation of the law ("...if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.." Galatians 5:18 NIV
"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus...he condemned sin in the flesh,4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." Romans 8:1,3-4 NIV).

When we have faith, and that faith finds it's expression in love for others (a.k.a 'walking in the Spirit'), we are removed from the condemnation of the law. IOW, we are not under the law when we do that. Love upholds the law, not destroys it. Meaning the law of Moses as you have acknowledged.

\

When we have faith, and that faith finds it's expression in love for others (a.k.a 'walking in the Spirit'),

We can have true love for others when in fact we are walking [ie; living from] in the Spirit.

It is by walking in the Spirit, that we can love others with the love of God.

IOW, we are not under the law when we do that.

It does not say that, as you are insinuating this is a reference to Moses law.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.

Meaning any law of God.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

For you, too, JLB...

If I don't uphold the law of Moses when I 'do not murder', then what does Paul mean when he says that faith upholds the law (of Moses, as both me and JLB now agree he is talking about)? And why is this upholding only for the Jews, not gentiles? Christ only died to set gentiles free from the law (as you mean that)? Really?

You did not give an understandable answer to this question before.

Why are redeemed, blood bought, Jews for whom Jesus died to release from the law still 'under the law' as you mean that? But gentiles have been set free from the law (as you mean that) by the redeeming blood of Christ?