The Law, works and keeping his comandments

[Deborah13]

Then how does God judge 'the whole world', and 'silence every mouth' by that law?

Romans 1:19-20 NASB
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

God has made Himself known to ALL men.

Romans 2:14-15,17
14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

17 But if you bear the name “Jew” and rely upon the Law and boast in God,

Now Paul says to the Jews that because they have the Law, the written oracles of God, they cannot rely on having the Law and boast in their position with God because they too sin and are under sin just the same as Gentiles when they sin.


Romans 3:9-10
9 What then? Are we [Jews] better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one;

I added the [Jews] in the verse above. So Paul has proved his case for the righteous judgment of God on both Jews and Gentiles.
God makes Himself evident to ALL men. The Gentiles who do not harden their hearts know right from wrong by their God given conscious and law on their hearts. Jews know God Laws that He gave to them, ALL the Law of Moses. Actually, reading all the text Paul tells them that the Law does them no good without a circumcised heart.

Romans 3:19
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;

Now Paul says to the Jews, that whatever the Law says it is speaking to you who have the Law, SO your mouth as well as the Gentiles mouths should be closed. You are all accountable to God. Jew and Gentile alike.
So in these first three chapters he just shuts the mouths of everyone. The ones who know there's a God and harden their hearts, the Gentiles who know there's a God and don't harden their hearts and the Jews that thought they were better than the Gentiles and had special rights with God when it came to justification. They certainly never thought that their God would have anything to do with an unconverted Gentile.
Now for me these next two verses put the nail in the coffin of anyone who thinks they have any excuse or privilege.

Romans 3:21-22
21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;

Paul the lawyer as proved his case. His evidence for "all men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

 

[JLB]

Romans 1:19-20 NASB
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

God has made Himself known to ALL men.

Romans 2:14-15,17
14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

17 But if you bear the name “Jew” and rely upon the Law and boast in God,

Now Paul says to the Jews that because they have the Law, the written oracles of God, they cannot rely on having the Law and boast in their position with God because they too sin and are under sin just the same as Gentiles when they sin.


Romans 3:9-10
9 What then? Are we [Jews] better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one;

I added the [Jews] in the verse above. So Paul has proved his case for the righteous judgment of God on both Jews and Gentiles.
God makes Himself evident to ALL men. The Gentiles who do not harden their hearts know right from wrong by their God given conscious and law on their hearts. Jews know God Laws that He gave to them, ALL the Law of Moses. Actually, reading all the text Paul tells them that the Law does them no good without a circumcised heart.

Romans 3:19
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;

Now Paul says to the Jews, that whatever the Law says it is speaking to you who have the Law, SO your mouth as well as the Gentiles mouths should be closed. You are all accountable to God. Jew and Gentile alike.
So in these first three chapters he just shuts the mouths of everyone. The ones who know there's a God and harden their hearts, the Gentiles who know there's a God and don't harden their hearts and the Jews that thought they were better than the Gentiles and had special rights with God when it came to justification. They certainly never thought that their God would have anything to do with an unconverted Gentile.
Now for me these next two verses put the nail in the coffin of anyone who thinks they have any excuse or privilege.

Romans 3:21-22
21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;

Paul the lawyer as proved his case. His evidence for "all men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

What is also crystal clear from Paul's Legal Discourse is, that Gentiles do not have the Law.

I don't see how anyone can argue this fact.

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law...

The Law of Moses was for the Children of Israel in the land of Israel.

46 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

His Laws are known to us because they are written in our hearts and minds, not because we learn them from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him. 1 John 2:27


The emphasis is to abide in Him, and learn from Him, as it it written -

... man shall not live by bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.


JLB

 

[Deborah13]

What is also crystal clear from Paul's Legal Discourse is, that Gentiles do not have the Law.

I don't see how anyone can argue this fact.

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law...

The Law of Moses was for the Children of Israel in the land of Israel.

46 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

His Laws are known to us because they are written in our hearts and minds, not because we learn them from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him. 1 John 2:27


The emphasis is to abide in Him, and learn from Him, as it it written -

... man shall not live by bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.


JLB

Amen.
As Romans 3:9 says, "all are under sin" not under the Law. That is what Paul was proving that all men were accountable and knowingly "under sin". Whether they had the written Law or not. They stood on equal ground.

The Law was never given to Gentiles.

I have a question for you JLB, do you think a Gentile Can put themselves "under the Law of Moses" so that they will be judged by the Law, instead of the blood of Christ?
Oh wait, that was a dumb question, they can convert to Judaism!

 

[JLB]

Amen.
As Romans 3:9 says, "all are under sin" not under the Law. That is what Paul was proving that all men were accountable and knowingly "under sin". Whether they had the written Law or not. They stood on equal ground.

The Law was never given to Gentiles.

I have a question for you JLB, do you think a Gentile Can put themselves "under the Law of Moses" so that they will be judged by the Law, instead of the blood of Christ?
Oh wait, that was a dumb question, they can convert to Judaism!

This is the exact point that Paul makes in the following passages.

1 Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, 2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. 4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!" 7Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. 8But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. 9But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain. Galatians 4:1-11

JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Do you believe that the Jews need to follow the Law of Moses to the best of their ability?
If so, what for?

If you mean literally, to the letter, then, 'no', I do not believe that. But if I understand JLB correctly, he said 'upholding the law' in Romans 3:31 is for the Jews, not the gentiles, which I can only take to mean literally. Because if he meant 'follow the law' as I have been defending that, then it's obvious that would include both Jews and gentiles and, therefore, he would not be arguing with what I've been saying. .

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Okay, lots of good stuff to comment on.

....as time permits, lol.

Back to the salt mine.

 

[Deborah13]

If you mean literally, to the letter, then, 'no', I do not believe that. But if I understand JLB correctly, he said 'upholding the law' in Romans 3:31 is for the Jews, not the gentiles, which I can only take to mean literally. Because if he meant 'follow the law' as I have been defending that, then it's obvious that would include both Jews and gentiles and, therefore, he would not be arguing with what I've been saying. .

I hope I can put into words what I hear in this scripture. I have to back up a couple of verses though.
NASB
29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.

So by v29, we can see that Paul is still addressing the Jews in Rome. Then in v30, we see that it is faith in Jesus and His work at the cross that justifies Jew and Gentile alike.

31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

Now remember he explaining to the Jews. He says, if we Jews have faith in Jesus and His sinless life and His work at the cross, that He fulfilled the Law of Moses do we Jews nullify the Law. NO never! We the Jews by faith in His work establish (cause to stand) the Law of Moses.
Well how can that be? If the Law were just nullified, done away with, had no power, then Jesus' work would have been in vain. It still stands. It has to in order for it to have been filled.

Here's a rather dumb example that you may find holes in and if you do please advise me!
If I hire a contractor to build my house, we sign a contract that he will completely build my house to code and with the work being completed correctly. When the work is done, he says that he has fulfilled the contract as stated. Now that contract is not null and void, it still stands. So if I find I have water leak because of faulty workmanship I can take that contract before a judge to make the contractor come back and fix the work. It is not my responsibility to fix it myself or pay someone else to fix it.
Now I hire that same contractor (he did a good job with the first contract, good workmanship) to build me a hunting cabin in the mountains. Some of things that were in the contract that he previously fulfilled are also in the new contract, like running water but this time I want five bedrooms rather than three (lots of hunting buddies to put up). Just because this contract includes some of the same things that are in the old doesn't mean that we use the old contract, it is old and in the filling cabinet. There is a new contract and now both he and I are bound to that new contract.

We can know by grace through faith that Jesus' sinless life and work at the cross was completed with perfect workmanship and that work can never be sucessfully challenged, not in this world or in heaven. He was the manifestation of the perfect righteousness of God. By faith all God's Laws are established, both for the Jew (Moses' Law) and for the Gentile, God's Laws to do right and not wrong, Love.

Yike, I don't know if that makes sense or not, you be the judge.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Matthew 5:17-18

Did Christ fulfill all concerning the Law?

Read the passage. He fulfilled all that had to be fulfilled before one jot or tittle would pass from the law. Since we know way more than a jot or tittle has passed from the law we know the 'all' he is talking about has indeed been fulfilled.

If He did, then obviously the phrase "pass from the law" is valid and requires the answer to the question; What has passed from the Law of Moses?

Hebrews explains what has passed from the law. What passed was the first covenant of temple, priest, and sacrifice. The requirements for those things did not go away. Hebrews explains how Christ is the fulfillment of those things, not the end of those things. What ended--what passed--was the WAY those things are fulfilled.

I had said we have to go to Hebrews to understand how the law was fulfilled by Christ, but how at the same time some 'jots and tittles' passed away from the law because of Christ.

 

[JLB]

Read the passage. He fulfilled all that had to be fulfilled before one jot or tittle would pass from the law. Since we know way more than a jot or tittle has passed from the law we know the 'all' he is talking about has indeed been fulfilled.



Hebrews explains what has passed from the law. What passed was the first covenant of temple, priest, and sacrifice. The requirements for those things did not go away. Hebrews explains how Christ is the fulfillment of those things, not the end of those things. What ended--what passed--was the WAY those things are fulfilled.

I had said we have to go to Hebrews to understand how the law was fulfilled by Christ, but how at the same time some 'jots and tittles' passed away from the law because of Christ.

Could you please provide the scripture that shows "what" has passed from the law of Moses.

JLB

 

[JLB]

Read the passage. He fulfilled all that had to be fulfilled before one jot or tittle would pass from the law. Since we know way more than a jot or tittle has passed from the law we know the 'all' he is talking about has indeed been fulfilled.



Hebrews explains what has passed from the law. What passed was the first covenant of temple, priest, and sacrifice. The requirements for those things did not go away. Hebrews explains how Christ is the fulfillment of those things, not the end of those things. What ended--what passed--was the WAY those things are fulfilled.

I had said we have to go to Hebrews to understand how the law was fulfilled by Christ, but how at the same time some 'jots and tittles' passed away from the law because of Christ.

13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. Hebrews 8:13

It disappeared at the cross.

The Covenant with the governing and applicable laws of the covenant that was added until the Seed should come, disappeared.

Not parts of it, but IT, the Covenant disappeared.

Not how it was to be upheld, disappeared, but the covenant itself disappeared.

Not the "way" it was fulfilled, but the covenant itself.


This is what Hebrews teaches.

7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. Hebrews 8:7

What we can discuss from this point, is what Laws of God were being kept before the Law of Moses, by Abraham, Job, Noah, Enoch and any others.

I believe the Ten Commandments are Laws that were from God and were around before Moses and should be upheld and kept today, even though the law of Moses was for the Children of Israel, for the land of Israel.

So, can we find some common ground here, and began a discussion that incorporates this idea.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Could you please provide the scripture that shows "what" has passed from the law of Moses.

JLB

Let's start in Hebrews 7.

11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. 13 He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared:

“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”

18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. (Hebrews 7:11-19 NIV)


In these passages we see a fulfillment of the lawful requirement for a Priesthood, not an abolishment of the lawful requirements for a Priesthood. AND, we see the setting aside, or disappearing, of how that requirement is fulfilled.

This is one of the things that illustrates how Jesus did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. And because he did that (fulfilled the law) something was then allowed to 'disappear' from the law--the 'disappearing' that Jesus said wouldn't happen between now and the passing away of heaven and earth until the 'all is fulfilled' happened.

The requirement of the law did not 'disappear', the WAY that requirement was upheld in the law passed away. Hebrews is where we learn that what was laid aside was the first covenant way of temple, priesthood, and sacrifice, not the requirements for Temple, Priesthood, and Sacrifice.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Not parts of it, but IT, the Covenant disappeared.

Not how it was to be upheld, disappeared, but the covenant itself disappeared.

Not the "way" it was fulfilled, but the covenant itself.

We will visit more Hebrews passages and you will see how wrong this is.

The law required the High Priest go into the Holy of Holies with blood for the atonement of the people of God. Did Jesus completely and utterly end all of the first covenant requirements for a Day of Atonement, or just some of them?
Does faith in Christ uphold the lawful requirement for the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16), or utterly remove every single part of it from this New Covenant? Hebrews explains how various aspects of that Day of Atonement are retained, not completely and totally removed, in this New Covenant.

The end of the first covenant means the end of the way of the first covenant. IOW, the way of the first covenant is the first covenant, not the requirements of that covenant. Now we satisfy those requirements in the way of this New Covenant of Temple, Priesthood, and sacrifice. But the same requirements of law are satisfied.

"...we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." (Romans 7:6 NIV)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. Hebrews 8:13

It disappeared at the cross.

Yes, the way of the first covenant--it's temple, priesthood, and sacrifice--was made obsolete (no longer needed) at the cross.

The author of Hebrews is prophesying the literal disappearance of the first covenant Temple system, which was apparently still around when he wrote the letter. We know it remained in use after the cross until it was physically destroyed in 70 A.D.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This is what Hebrews teaches.

7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. Hebrews 8:7

...covenant of temple, priesthood, and sacrifice.

I think this accurately shows what the author was talking about when he speaks of the first covenant. It was a covenant of temple, priesthood, and sacrifice. For even you acknowledge that the fundamental requirements of law that system and covenant of temple, priesthood, and sacrifice sought to uphold predate the first covenant. What changed was how those requirements get upheld, not the requirements themselves. And based on the next part of your post I can't see how you'll disagree with that for long.

What we can discuss from this point, is what Laws of God were being kept before the Law of Moses, by Abraham, Job, Noah, Enoch and any others.

I believe the Ten Commandments are Laws that were from God and were around before Moses and should be upheld and kept today, even though the law of Moses was for the Children of Israel, for the land of Israel.

So, can we find some common ground here, and began a discussion that incorporates this idea.

Yes, this is our common ground (even the priesthood predates the first covenant). And this is the very reason why the first covenant is a way of serving God, and not the things that way upholds.

 

[jasoncran]

qurstion. the shabat isn't obligatory for the Christian nor circumcision. per acts 15. so yay or nay on those?

 

[JLB]

Let's start in Hebrews 7.

11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. 13 He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared:

“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”

18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. (Hebrews 7:11-19 NIV)

In these passages we see a fulfillment of the lawful requirement for a Priesthood, not an abolishment of the lawful requirements for a Priesthood. AND, we see the setting aside, or disappearing, of how that requirement is fulfilled.

This is one of the things that illustrates how Jesus did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. And because he did that (fulfilled the law) something was then allowed to 'disappear' from the law--the 'disappearing' that Jesus said wouldn't happen between now and the passing away of heaven and earth until the 'all is fulfilled' happened.

The requirement of the law did not 'disappear', the WAY that requirement was upheld in the law passed away. Hebrews is where we learn that what was laid aside was the first covenant way of temple, priesthood, and sacrifice, not the requirements for Temple, Priesthood, and Sacrifice.

Again, The passages I quoted are from Hebrews.

Again, I believe God's law is Eternal, and the law of Moses that was between the Lord and the children of Israel was not.

Jesus Himself, did not sacrifice. Jesus Himself did not go to a Levitical Priest, for He is a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, before and after the law of Moses.

We are to walk with God today as Abraham did.

We are to walk with God in His Presence as Abraham did, and be blameless.

We are to know God and be taught of God as Abraham did, for that is the Covenant we have been grafted into, not the Covenant at Sinai.

13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. Hebrews 8:13

When in your opinion, will the old covenant disappear, if not at the cross?


JLB

 

[JLB]

Yes, the way of the first covenant--it's temple, priesthood, and sacrifice--was made obsolete (no longer needed) at the cross.

The author of Hebrews is prophesying the literal disappearance of the first covenant Temple system, which was apparently still around when he wrote the letter. We know it remained in use after the cross until it was physically destroyed in 70 A.D.

The Way we have a relationship with God, is the Way Abraham walked with God and obeyed His Voice.

The Way Jesus has a relationship with God, is the WAY we are to have a relationship with God, which is to walk with God and obey His Voice.

The Way Moses walked with God and obeyed His Voice, and wrote of creation and gave the children of Israel the law, until the Seed Should come, is the Way we are to have a relationship with God.


JLB

 

[JLB]

...covenant of temple, priesthood, and sacrifice.

I think this accurately shows what the author was talking about when he speaks of the first covenant. It was a covenant of temple, priesthood, and sacrifice. For even you acknowledge that the fundamental requirements of law that system and covenant of temple, priesthood, and sacrifice sought to uphold predate the first covenant. What changed was how those requirements get upheld, not the requirements themselves. And based on the next part of your post I can't see how you'll disagree with that for long.



Yes, this is our common ground (even the priesthood predates the first covenant). And this is the very reason why the first covenant is a way of serving God, and not the things that way upholds.

You have made the Christian walk about upholding the law of Moses.

The Christian walk is about Jesus restoring our broken relationship with God, that Adam had in the garden, not about HOW we can keep the law of Moses.


JLB

 

[JLB]

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy , but to fulfill . Matthew 5:17

To "destroy" the Law, and "fulfill" the Law, were well know expressions in that day that referred to a Rabbinical "legal" argument. [Hebrew Idiom]

To destroy the Law, was an expression that meant wrongly interpreting the Law.

To fulfill the Law, was an expression that meant correctly interpreting the Law.

Jesus fulfilled the Law in that He interpreted correctly its meaning.

Jesus fulfilled the Law, in that His Life was a proper expression of how to have a relationship with God.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy , but to fulfill . Matthew 5:17

To "destroy" the Law, and "fulfill" the Law, were well know expressions in that day that referred to a Rabbinical "legal" argument. [Hebrew Idiom]

To destroy the Law, was an expression that meant wrongly interpreting the Law.

To fulfill the Law, was an expression that meant correctly interpreting the Law.

Jesus fulfilled the Law in that He interpreted correctly its meaning.

Jesus fulfilled the Law, in that His Life was a proper expression of how to have a relationship with God.


JLB

Yes, this is the argument of our Messianic brethren. They use it to defend their doctrine that the literal keeping of the law of Moses did not go away. Which is funny because I'm confident that you do not want to make that argument.

Destroying the law, even if it does mean not properly interpreting the law, would result in not upholding the law. Jesus' point being he did not come to 'not' uphold the requirements of the law. He came to uphold them. But at the same time, as a direct result of doing that (satisfying the law, not destroying it) various things would 'disappear' from the law--the laws surrounding the literal temple and priesthood and it's sacrifices (the first covenant) being those laws.