The Law, works and keeping his comandments

[Jethro Bodine]

21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 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-- Galatians 4:21-25

"31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (Romans 3:31 NIV)

So why are the Jews still 'under' the law by their faith in Christ, and it's okay(?), but we gentiles are not 'under' the law by our faith in Christ?

I'm just trying to understand you doctrine. Again, there's nothing about what I believe in this post so that you can focus completely on explaining your doctrine.

 

[Sinthesis]

And I asked you what law that gets upheld by faith is not also fulfilled by that faith, and vice versa. Explain your doctrine by contrasting the meanings of 'upheld' and 'fulfilled' for us in regard to the law so that we can know 'upheld' does not mean 'fulfilled', and so by extension faith does not fulfill the law...even though that's what these passages say:

"14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”" (Galatians 5:14 NIV)

"...whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:8-10 NIV)

Moses' law is confirmed/validated/upheld by faith. In our case as Christians it is our faith that Jesus is the Messiah which associates us with Moses' law. Without faith, all of Moses' law is just the vain repetition of works for no good reason. Because Moses' law points to the Messiah, only Jesus Christ is the ultimate consummation of Moses' law. That the Messiah came is the entire reason we know Moses' law was worthwhile.

Your scripture examples translate into variants of 'fulfill' different Greek words than that used in Rom 3:31. We can conclude that Paul intended to communicate different meanings, or else he would have used the same Greek words. In these cases the words used more properly mean to complete/realize/fill the law, in contrast to a loveless law that is empty.

 

[Deborah13]

"31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (Romans 3:31 NIV)

So why are the Jews still 'under' the law by their faith in Christ, and it's okay(?), but we gentiles are not 'under' the law by our faith in Christ?

I'm just trying to understand you doctrine. Again, there's nothing about what I believe in this post so that you can focus completely on explaining your doctrine.

Where does scripture say that believing Jews are still 'under' the law by their faith in Christ?

Paul said this about himself.....

1 Corinth. 9:20-21 NASB
20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under [a]the Law, as under [b]the Law though not being myself under [c]the Law, so that I might win those who are under [d]the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.

I believe Paul clearly says, he is not under the Jewish Laws, but under the law of Christ.

 

[reba]

What does 'up hold' the law mean?
what does under the law mean?
what does nullify the law mean?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Moses' law is confirmed/validated/upheld by faith. In our case as Christians it is our faith that Jesus is the Messiah which associates us with Moses' law. Without faith, all of Moses' law is just the vain repetition of works for no good reason. Because Moses' law points to the Messiah, only Jesus Christ is the ultimate consummation of Moses' law. That the Messiah came is the entire reason we know Moses' law was worthwhile.

Your scripture examples translate into variants of 'fulfill' different Greek words than that used in Rom 3:31. We can conclude that Paul intended to communicate different meanings, or else he would have used the same Greek words. In these cases the words used more properly mean to complete/realize/fill the law, in contrast to a loveless law that is empty.

From your point of view, explain what this negates in what I've been saying in this forum.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Where does scripture say that believing Jews are still 'under' the law by their faith in Christ?

I'm pretty sure I understand JLB's argument that the 'we' in this passage means Paul and the Jews, not us gentiles:

""31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (Romans 3:31 NIV)

He says Paul is referring to himself and the Jews as the one's who uphold the law of Moses by faith, not us gentiles. That's what he's been arguing that the passage means.

Paul said this about himself.....

1 Corinth. 9:20-21 NASB
20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under [a]the Law, as under [b]the Law though not being myself under [c]the Law, so that I might win those who are under [d]the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.

I believe Paul clearly says, he is not under the Jewish Laws, but under the law of Christ.

To me there's no question about it.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

What does 'up hold' the law mean?
what does under the law mean?
what does nullify the law mean?

I think from the Romans 3:31 verse that 'uphold' means the opposite of 'nullify':

"31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (Romans 3:31 NIV)

Nullify means to make of 'no effect', 'inapplicable' perhaps? From the passage, 'uphold' would, therefore, mean the opposite.

 

[Deborah13]

I think from the Romans 3:31 verse that 'uphold' means the opposite of 'nullify':

"31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (Romans 3:31 NIV)

Nullify means to make of 'no effect', 'inapplicable' perhaps? From the passage, 'uphold' would, therefore, mean the opposite.

Here is what Wuest's Word Studies of the Greek says about Galatians 4:5, "the word law is not preceded by the definite article, hence law in general is referred to here" (Volume 1, p. 115)." The definite article is "the".

Galatians 4:4-5 KJV
Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Gal 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Young's Literal Translation
4 and when the fulness of time did come, God sent forth His Son, come of a woman, come under law,
5 that those under law he may redeem, that the adoption of sons we may receive;

You can look at the Greek here....http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rom3.pdf

Well we know that Paul clearly said that Gentiles were not under the Law of Moses, Moses being the Mediator of that Law. So if verse 4 is talking about the Law of Moses than one of two things most be true, I think.
1. Gentiles were not under the Law of Moses until they became believers and then they are or
2. verse 5 does not include Gentiles as being redeemed and adopted as sons and most of the NT was not written for Gentiles at all.

So how we interrupt verse 4 is essential in understanding verse 5 and reconciling verse 4 with Paul's teaching about Gentiles and the Law of Moses.
So when was the seed of woman first mentioned, in Genesis. Was law in effect in Genesis? The minute that Adam sinned the law of "sin and death" went into effect.

Romans 3:21 KJV
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Young's Literal Translation
21 And now apart from law hath the righteousness of God been manifested, testified to by the law and the prophets,

In the Greek there isn't the definite article "the" but the second use there is. By the way I think the second use "the law" is the whole law (Torah). Because beginning in Genesis we see the witness to Christ.

Romans 3:31 KJV
31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Young's Literal Translation
31 Law then do we make useless through the faith? let it not be! yea, we do establish law.

The Greek as Young has translated and in the interlinear makes sense of the whole teachings. Paul was a brilliant man, I don't believe that the use of the definite article was by chance and those hearing it in the Greek would have understood what he was saying. I think that Romans 3:21 where there is no definite article and then there is, where it clearly states "the law and the prophets", shows Paul to be making a differentiation.

I'm not a good writer but I hope this is somewhat clear as to what I am seeing.

Blessings

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Romans 3:31 KJV
31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Young's Literal Translation
31 Law then do we make useless through the faith? let it not be! yea, we do establish law.

The Greek as Young has translated and in the interlinear makes sense of the whole teachings. Paul was a brilliant man, I don't believe that the use of the definite article was by chance and those hearing it in the Greek would have understood what he was saying. I think that Romans 3:21 where there is no definite article and then there is, where it clearly states "the law and the prophets", shows Paul to be making a differentiation.

I'm not a good writer but I hope this is somewhat clear as to what I am seeing.

Blessings

I did notice that Paul used 'the law', and 'law'. One other thing I noticed is, Paul, as far as I know, never comes right out and says 'keep' the law. And I think for the reason of communicating the fact that we don't 'keep' the letter of the law as is instantly heard by the church today when you say the word 'law'.

Walking by faith is not lawlessness as so many in the church have interpreted that to mean. When we uphold 'law', we do not violate the righteous principles of the 'the law', we uphold them.

 

[Deborah13]

I did notice that Paul used 'the law', and 'law'. One other thing I noticed is, Paul, as far as I know, never comes right out and says 'keep' the law. And I think for the reason of communicating the fact that we don't 'keep' the letter of the law as is instantly heard by the church today when you say the word 'law'.

Walking by faith is not lawlessness as so many in the church have interpreted that to mean. When we uphold 'law', we do not violate the righteous principles of the 'the law', we uphold them.

Well, I think it might take some time, patience, and good teachings to balance things out. For centuries people have been beat over the head with the 10 Commandments and what people saw was "Thou shall not", which even the Bible says stirs up sin consciousness (doing it's job). When an unbeliever reads the 10, many times they just say well I can't do that so what's the point of even trying. That's because they are getting an unbalanced message, they don't hear the grace and faith part.
When the 10 are used on Christians, righteous people, it does the same thing in that it stirs sin consciousness. Paul says if we are born again we should not be sin conscious. Does that mean lawless, God forbid! And yet even with Paul that's what they heard Paul saying. He had to expound on his teaching.
So should the church stop teaching the truth as Paul states it because there are those who wish to be lawless and so take advantage of their position in Christ? Should the church stop teaching truth because there are some who are not born again and so they don't have the witness of the Holy Spirit, of the righteousness of Christ?
I don't think they should but I hope the one's teaching are filled with the Spirit and seek God in their preaching/teaching so that their message is one that balances the message of God grace towards us and the message of our faithfulness in Him.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

When the 10 are used on Christians, righteous people, it does the same thing in that it stirs sin consciousness. Paul says if we are born again we should not be sin conscious.

I think you're overstepping what Paul was teaching. Becoming conscious of sin does not automatically equate to a person then being put into bondage of that sin. That is only true for unbelievers--those who's old nature is still alive and in authority over them, like a husband. Read Romans 7 carefully.

The law only keeps people bound to their sin--the law acting like a marriage contract--for the person who's mindset of sin, the old nature, is still alive. This misunderstanding that any mention of 'law' puts a person in bondage to sin, I would say, plays a very large part in the misguided doctrines of law in the church today. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a born-again person learning about what is sin, and what is not sin, in the scriptures.

Does that mean lawless, God forbid! And yet even with Paul that's what they heard Paul saying. He had to expound on his teaching.

Yes, the misunderstanding about the law was present right from the start of the New Covenant. The misunderstanding did not become the official doctrine of the church until the 3rd or 4th century.

So should the church stop teaching the truth as Paul states it because there are those who wish to be lawless and so take advantage of their position in Christ? Should the church stop teaching truth because there are some who are not born again and so they don't have the witness of the Holy Spirit, of the righteousness of Christ?

Speaking generally, of course, but I would like to see the church start teaching the truth about upholding and fulfilling the law through faith in Christ, and abandon this ridiculous 'no rules. just follow your heart, and even then your obedience is still optional because salvation is so utterly by the grace of God, not works' garbage.

I don't think they should but I hope the one's teaching are filled with the Spirit and seek God in their preaching/teaching so that their message is one that balances the message of God grace towards us and the message of our faithfulness in Him.

I think they're is sufficient talk of 'grace'. But a grace that is terribly misunderstood and distorted to mean 'grace to continue in sin', instead of what it really is, 'grace to not sin anymore'.

Walking in faith, and pleasing God, is ALL about the fruit of the Spirit. But the church is simply not being taught this. Talk of grace is, of course, good, but if the grace of God doesn't cause you to walk in the Spirit according to the fruit of the Spirit you have a vain concept of grace. One that can NOT save you. (Not 'you' Deborah...any person who thinks grace is somehow utterly disconnected from the ability and the necessity to obey God by crucifying the mind of the flesh and walking in the mind of the Spirit, and, thus, satisfying the requirements of the law.)

 

[Deborah13]

I think you're overstepping what Paul was teaching. Becoming conscious of sin does not automatically equate to a person then being put into bondage of that sin. That is only true for unbelievers--those who's old nature is still alive and in authority over them, like a husband. Read Romans 7 carefully.

The law only keeps people bound to their sin--the law acting like a marriage contract--for the person who's mindset of sin, the old nature, is still alive. This misunderstanding that any mention of 'law' puts a person in bondage to sin, I would say, plays a very large part in the misguided doctrines of law in the church today. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a born-again person learning about what is sin, and what is not sin, in the scriptures.

Hmm...I don't think I was clear maybe as I see you equating sin consciousness to bondage to sin, in what I said.
I do not see that a sin consciousness necessarily will lead to bondage to sin (sins of the flesh), although I know it can. But sin consciousness can lead to a person feeling guilty all the time. They can be so conscious of sin that it consumes their thoughts so strongly that they become legalistic with themselves to the point that their self-consumed, self-centered.
Andrew Wommack describes himself at one point to being a self-righteous 18 year old, Baptist boy. His motto, "I don't drink, smoke, or chew or hang with those who do." He is now a grace/faith teacher. It did not cause him to change his life style. He still, now in his 60's, has never even tasted any alcohol, smoked a cigg. etc. He and his wife Jamie have been married for around 40 yrs. But he is no longer a self-righteous, legalist person.
So that was my point in that it needs to be taught as Paul taught it, with the clarifiers of knowing who you are in Christ and therefore understanding what walking in the Spirit means.

Yes, the misunderstanding about the law was present right from the start of the New Covenant. The misunderstanding did not become the official doctrine of the church until the 3rd or 4th century.



Speaking generally, of course, but I would like to see the church start teaching the truth about upholding and fulfilling the law through faith in Christ, and abandon this ridiculous 'no rules. just follow your heart, and even then your obedience is still optional because salvation is so utterly by the grace of God, not works' garbage.

Of coarse I don't know what churches or sermons you are listening to so I can't comment on what you personally are hearing. I will say that we can't relay on other people who are living lawless to tell us what they were taught. Very often people hear what they want to hear and it is only part of what was said. Paul had that same problem with people, he had to keep clarifying and explaining.
There is a scripture that says about those who are taught by God, they hear and learn. The problem arises when one hears but doesn't learn. Paul was accused of being a "tickle the ear" preacher but he wasn't. People were hearing the part they wanted to hear, a partial teaching.
I think that is a least a part of the problem today. I'm sure there are preachers out there who are not being lead by the Spirit in their teachings but I would bet there are more people just hearing what they want to hear.

I think they're is sufficient talk of 'grace'. But a grace that is terribly misunderstood and distorted to mean 'grace to continue in sin', instead of what it really is, 'grace to not sin anymore'.

Walking in faith, and pleasing God, is ALL about the fruit of the Spirit. But the church is simply not being taught this. Talk of grace is, of course, good, but if the grace of God doesn't cause you to walk in the Spirit according to the fruit of the Spirit you have a vain concept of grace. One that can NOT save you. (Not 'you' Deborah...any person who thinks grace is somehow utterly disconnected from the ability and the necessity to obey God by crucifying the mind of the flesh and walking in the mind of the Spirit, and, thus, satisfying the requirements of the law.)

I agree with much of what you have said. So my question is, how do you think, by grace through faith, should be taught without putting "new wine in old wineskins".
I found it to be an interesting exercise to try to write a sermon, as though I were a teacher/preacher, and make this concept adequately stated so that it can be understood in one teaching. Not so easy. One cannot mix grace and law, both will be lost.
So one must teach grace and faith without teaching lawlessness.

Blessing to you, Jethro

 

[Sinthesis]

From your point of view, explain what this negates in what I've been saying in this forum.

It negates your particular interpretation of the verses you are using to support your claim. I'm just trying to understand how you support what you have been preaching. Your support from these verses crumbles when the words are defined correctly. As for the why you believe what you have been preaching, I think perhaps you misunderstand the concept of law vs Grace, don't realize the derivative nature of all laws, and don't fully appreciate the extent to which sin permeates our will. These misunderstandings are not unique, but they lead to a theological dead end.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

It negates your particular interpretation of the verses you are using to support your claim. I'm just trying to understand how you support what you have been preaching. Your support from these verses crumbles when the words are defined correctly. As for the why you believe what you have been preaching, I think perhaps you misunderstand the concept of law vs Grace, don't realize the derivative nature of all laws, and don't fully appreciate the extent to which sin permeates our will. These misunderstandings are not unique, but they lead to a theological dead end.

You'll have to relate this directly to something I've said for this to make any sense.

When we believe and walk according to the fruit of the Spirit we fulfill and uphold the requirements of the law of Moses. Not the way of the law of Moses, the requirements of the law of Moses. Christ being the upholding and fulfillment of the law of Moses concerning sacrifice for sin is perhaps the easiest way to understand this truth taught in our Bibles.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I do not see that a sin consciousness necessarily will lead to bondage to sin (sins of the flesh), although I know it can. But sin consciousness can lead to a person feeling guilty all the time. They can be so conscious of sin that it consumes their thoughts so strongly that they become legalistic with themselves to the point that their self-consumed, self-centered.

I don't think there's anything wrong with being consumed with not sinning. What makes it burdensome is trying to do that without knowing and relying on the truth that it is the fruit of the Spirit within us that defeats sin in our lives. IOW, when we stand afar off from God, conscious of our sin, and try within ourselves to defeat that sin, that is when being consumed with the desire to be sin free will be a burden. The key to an ever-increasing sinless life is nurturing the fruit of the Spirit within us.

Andrew Wommack describes himself at one point to being a self-righteous 18 year old, Baptist boy. His motto, "I don't drink, smoke, or chew or hang with those who do." He is now a grace/faith teacher. It did not cause him to change his life style. He still, now in his 60's, has never even tasted any alcohol, smoked a cigg. etc. He and his wife Jamie have been married for around 40 yrs. But he is no longer a self-righteous, legalist person.

'SELF' righteous being the key here. We don't dispose of, or dumb down, the command to obey God. We dispose of the fleshly effort of self to obey God. Faith is the victory, not man's efforts to crucify the flesh.

So that was my point in that it needs to be taught as Paul taught it, with the clarifiers of knowing who you are in Christ and therefore understanding what walking in the Spirit means.

But I honestly believe the church doesn't understand what 'walking in the Spirit' is.

It's simply being patient, peaceable, forgiving, loving, faithful, etc. IOW, walking in the fruit of the Spirit. You can't sin while walking in a sin's opposing fruit of the Spirit.

There is something else I want to address in your post, but I've got to run....

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I agree with much of what you have said. So my question is, how do you think, by grace through faith, should be taught without putting "new wine in old wineskins".

The way James does.

"We know that the law is good if one uses it properly" (1 Timothy 1:8 NIV). I think James is a good read to see an example of how one teaches the life of the Spirit while keeping the requirements of the law in mind. There he tells his audience to 'love your neighbor as yourself', and then uses various requirements of the law to show them they have not been doing that.

The church has this thinking that 'love your neighbor as yourself' is a vague feeling and is subject to one's own interpretation and conviction. That's what makes it the easy, ear-tickling teaching that it has become in the church today. But when we use the law properly we can see if our 'love' has really been the 'love' God commands us to have for one another, and which fulfills and upholds the law. Paul said ,"Love does no harm to a neighbor" (Romans 13:10 NIV). The law has specific ways spelled out in it that represent how we are to love others so as not to hurt them. We can keep these specific laws in mind as we gauge our daily behavior as to whether or not it has really been loving behavior or not.

One cannot mix grace and law, both will be lost.

Can you see how these words, particularly 'law' have connotations attached to them that instantly direct one's thoughts in a particular path?

Obviously, James does mix grace and law in his letter. But we can't see that because we've been taught that law always and without exception means something bad and forbidden. Hardly true when you consider how James uses the law of Moses very effectively to instruct his audience that they have not been very loving.

So one must teach grace and faith without teaching lawlessness.

Blessing to you, Jethro

No question about it. For starters let's get rid of this thinking that somehow any mention of 'law' and 'works' is forbidden in a discussion about grace. Grace that goes without the consequence of a changed nature is a grace that can not save. The changed nature being the evidence of the grace that saves.

And blessings to you, too.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The bottom line of all this is, God gave us grace to uphold and fulfill the law, not get rid of it as is popularly believed in the church today. Not uphold and fulfill the literal way of the law of Moses, but uphold and fulfill the fundamental requirements of the law that the literal way sought to uphold but couldn't. That literal way being only an illustration of the true way to uphold the requirements of the law of Moses.

 

[Deborah13]

The way James does.

"We know that the law is good if one uses it properly" (1 Timothy 1:8 NIV). I think James is a good read to see an example of how one teaches the life of the Spirit while keeping the requirements of the law in mind. There he tells his audience to 'love your neighbor as yourself', and then uses various requirements of the law to show them they have not been doing that.

The church has this thinking that 'love your neighbor as yourself' is a vague feeling and is subject to one's own interpretation and conviction. That's what makes it the easy, ear-tickling teaching that it has become in the church today. But when we use the law properly we can see if our 'love' has really been the 'love' God commands us to have for one another, and which fulfills and upholds the law. Paul said ,"Love does no harm to a neighbor" (Romans 13:10 NIV). The law has specific ways spelled out in it that represent how we are to love others so as not to hurt them. We can keep these specific laws in mind as we gauge our daily behavior as to whether or not it has really been loving behavior or not.



Can you see how these words, particularly 'law' have connotations attached to them that instantly direct one's thoughts in a particular path?

Obviously, James does mix grace and law in his letter. But we can't see that because we've been taught that law always and without exception means something bad and forbidden. Hardly true when you consider how James uses the law of Moses very effectively to instruct his audience that they have not been very loving.


No question about it. For starters let's get rid of this thinking that somehow any mention of 'law' and 'works' is forbidden in a discussion about grace. Grace that goes without the consequence of a changed nature is a grace that can not save. The changed nature being the evidence of the grace that saves.

And blessings to you, too.

So do you think grace and faith are the same thing? Because I think James' teaching is more along the line of faith and works, not grace and works.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So do you think grace and faith are the same thing?

They are the same thing in that the faith to believe is a grace given to mankind. Nobody earns it, nobody can manufacture it, nobody is worthy of it. That's what makes faith the grace of God extended to mankind. It's the supernatural ability to know something is true without seeing it that can only be given as a gracious gift.

Because I think James' teaching is more along the line of faith and works, not grace and works.

Or maybe it's a teaching about walking in the grace of faith, summarized in the royal law 'love your neighbor as yourself'. Faith upholds and fulfills the "royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” (James 2:8 NIV).

 

[Deborah13]

I

They are the same thing in that the faith to believe is a grace given to mankind. Nobody earns it, nobody can manufacture it, nobody is worthy of it. That's what makes faith the grace of God extended to mankind. It's the supernatural ability to know something is true without seeing it that can only be given as a gracious gift.



Or maybe it's a teaching about walking in the grace of faith, summarized in the royal law 'love your neighbor as yourself'. Faith upholds and fulfills the "royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” (James 2:8 NIV).

I agree that we can only have faith because God is gracious towards us. All good things come from Him.