The Law

[Elijah674]

I take it you object to those of us who believe that the Law of Moses has been retired.

Fair enough. But I politely suggest you many need to make the effort to improve the clarity of your posts. I often have no idea what you are trying to say.

Some are above the 'milk' about the Ark's contents & moses law's that he wrote in a book & had placed in the side of God's Ark.. NOT INSIDE!
(but 'i' do not hold your youth against you!)

And NEVER CAN OR WERE the Lord's Eternal 'FOR/KNOWN' Covenant (Heb. 13:20)
abolished.. or could they be! Yet, Moses laws of Gal. 3:19's which were ADDED law, were all fulfilled at the cross.

--Elijah

PS: You post.. 'But I politely suggest you many need to make the effort to improve the clarity of your posts.';)

 

[Drew]

(but 'i' do not hold your youth against you!)

I may well be older than you. I am 53.

PS: You post.. 'But I politely suggest you many need to make the effort to improve the clarity of your posts.';)

True enough, but I politely suggest that many of your posts are not worded in a manner accessible to many of us.

Can you please make your point in a less crptic way?

What is your basic position on the status of the Law of Moses? Please - no obscure allusions or puzzling metaphors. Please tell us in plain language what your position is.

 

[Elijah674]

I may well be older than you. I am 53.


True enough, but I politely suggest that many of your posts are not worded in a manner accessible to many of us.

Can you please make your point in a less crptic way?

What is your basic position on the status of the Law of Moses? Please - no obscure allusions or puzzling metaphors. Please tell us in plain language what your position is.

First off, you are the young'in!;)

Isa. 8
[20] To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

I find that Christ/God alone wrote from an ORIGINAL Eternal Convenant the ten Commandments. And then comes the 66 Books from Inspiration as the Testimony part. With Moses laws mostly having to do with the Psalms 77
[13] Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary: who is so great a God as our God?

And this was patterened after Heavens Original..
Exod. 25
[8] And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.
[9] According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.

Any/way, 'many' of Moses laws pertained to this service. (like a daily, and yearly.. 'day of atonement' blueprint) (or the woman might think of their recipe of instructions?)
These most all pointed to Christ's death which were completed at His crucifxion. But not all, for we are to have the FINISH of Christ High Priestly work on the Final Day of Atonement in heaven itself. (Rev. 22:11-12) Which was on the other side of the 'dividing curtain' into the Most Holy Place that only has the Ark of God for its furnishings in it.

And no, not all.. for we see Abe in Gen. 26:5 long before the Sanctuary.. he was keeping all of these required laws. And God said that this is why he was called, because of his OBEDIENCE. And these law's were before Mt. Sinai. So the Sanctuary had some additional instructions needed.

Another good chapter is Acts 15 single'ing out Law of Moses + Circumcism for why the meeting was set up. (verse 1 + 5 has both mentioned)

--Elijah

 

[Drew]

Well, at least I asked for a clear articulation of a position.....:yes

If any of the rest can make sense of Elijah's post, please explain it to me.

I sure can't.

 

[Webb]

I can't either.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I think he's saying the Ten Commandments were written by God himself and is an eternal covenant. The implication being the Ten Commandments given directly to us from God are entirely and forever binding while all other inspired texts written by men in our Bibles may or may not be binding anymore.

And this is where I'm used to seeing the law argument center. Virtually everyone knows and agrees that the laws of sacrifice for sin are no longer needed and so the law has 'passed away' in that sense (not destroyed, just not needed anymore). The disagreement comes in on the matter of the Sabbath and the Festival cycle. There's where the gloves come off and the blood flows, lol.

 

[Elijah674]

I think he's saying the Ten Commandments were written by God himself and is an eternal covenant. The implication being the Ten Commandments given directly to us from God are entirely and forever binding while all other inspired texts written by men in our Bibles may or may not be binding anymore.

And this is where I'm used to seeing the law argument center. Virtually everyone knows and agrees that the laws of sacrifice for sin are no longer needed and so the law has 'passed away' in that sense (not destroyed, just not needed anymore). The disagreement comes in on the matter of the Sabbath and the Festival cycle. There's where the gloves come off and the blood flows, lol.

Hi The first paragraph is right on the mark.

But the second one is not so from this end! My conviction are the posts to the [material posted up] not to any individual. I keep the seventh day Sabbath because I Love my Lord. And NO one can know anothers growth or what is inside of their heart. And there has no doubt been millions who will be saved not believing as you or 'i' do. (even Rom. 2:14-15 who only knew God throught His nature.. yet, had His law written in their hearts) And these Obeyed to the best of their being led. Rom. 8:14.

And as for 'me'?? John 10:10 + John 14:15 finds me loving Christ & Jehovah God.
John 10
[10] If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

John 14
[15] If ye love me, keep my commandments.
[16] And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

And you mention Gods 7th Day Sabbath? I myself believe that James 2:10 includes any one of the ten being knowingly broken. And again, that is my personal conviction. And the only thing 'personal'?? from here would be ones [posting].
I am a firm believer of Titus 3 regardless of it being me or another.

[9] But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
[10] A man that is an heretick [after the first and second admonition reject];
[11] Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

--Elijah

 

[Stormcrow]

One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And He said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' [Deut. 6:5] "This is the great and foremost commandment. "The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' [Lev. 19:18] "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." Matthew 22:35-40 (NASB)

Every other law is superfluous if you only practice these.

 

[Former Christian]

Drew & Stormcrow

Romans 3:
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. (NASB)

Ephesians 2:
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

Let’s be clear here. The two passages in question are referring to the same law, right?

The Law of Moses?

The law established through the law of faith in Rom 3:31 – and – the law of commandments contained in ordinances abolished in his (Christ’s) flesh in Eph 2:15?

FC

 

[Drew]

I think he's saying the Ten Commandments were written by God himself and is an eternal covenant.

Well, I would disagree with that position and, based on my interpretation of your posts, I expect you would too.

The Ten Commandments are part of the Law of Moses.

The Law of Moses is clearly "retired" and "replaced" by the indwelling Spirit, as Paul argues.

Just in case anyone is under the illusion that someone who says the law is retired is thereby saying its not sin to commit murder, or covet your neighbour's wife: We no more need a written law to tell us these things are wrong than we need a law to tell us to not torture puppies - these things are self-evident to anyone who has the indwelling Spirit.

 

[Drew]

Let’s be clear here. The two passages in question are referring to the same law, right?

The Law of Moses?

The law established through the law of faith in Rom 3:31 – and – the law of commandments contained in ordinances abolished in his (Christ’s) flesh in Eph 2:15?

I am not sure these are really the "same" law. I still owe you the argument about how Paul thinks in terms of two laws. Just as a forestaste, it is clear that Paul thinks in terms of two Israels. So it is not unreasonable to imagine he thinks in terms of two laws - one followed by national (ethnic) Israel (the Law of Moses) and one followed by the church (as this second Israel).

In any event, you appear to have not dealt with arguments that Stormcrow and I have put forward about how what Paul might be saying in Romans 3:31 is not that the Law of Moses is "established" in the sense of being confirmed as being in force, but rather established in the sense as being confirmed as playing a central part in God's overall plan of redemption.

But I will try to deal with the "two law" argument shortly.

 

[Drew]

11For there is no partiality with God. 12For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

It is clear that Paul is dealing with God’s impartial treatment of Jew and Gentile (verse 11).

It is clear that “those without the Law” in verse 12 are Gentiles, while those “under the Law” in verse 12 are Jews.

Now we have a situation where Paul has clearly both Jew and Gentile in mind and how God will treat them without partiality. So when he makes his statement in verse 13, he cannot simply be talking about Jews. No competent writer would build an argument as to how God will treat Jews and Gentile equally, and then entirely overlook Gentiles in his conclusion about who gets justified.

Note the connective “for” at the beginning of verses 12 and 13. As often with Paul, this functions as a “because”. Verses 12 and 13 are clearly elaborations of the statement of impartiality in verse 11.

In verse 12 Paul tells the dark side of the story – the Gentile who sins will perish and the Jew who sins will perish as well. Note: Although Paul does not specifically state that the Jew will perish, we must conclude that this is his point, otherwise he would not be explicating an impartial judgement.

In verse 13, we get the good news about who gets justified. Notice how it would make no sense at all for Paul to first declare that God is impartial, then say that both Jewish and Gentile sinners will be punished, and then make a statement about justification that only dealt with Jews. The entire structure of this mini-argument demands that any statement about justification also demonstrate the thesis of the argument - that God is impartial. Therefore, verse 13 has to be about both Jews and Gentiles being justified.

And this is entirely plausible, given how Paul says things here in chapter 2, as well as in Romans 3 and Romans 9 that entirely endorse the notion that there is “another law” (other than the written code) to which the Gentile (as well as the Jew, but that’s beside the point) can indeed be justified by.​

 

[Drew]

To revisit my last post. Here is the basic argument that Paul is making (as he makes in Romans 3 and Romans 9).

1. Premise: The Law of Moses was only given to the Jews. This is clear from scripture even though many do not accept it. But, of course, Paul knows it since, unlike so many of us, he actually knows His Bible;

2. Fact: Paul speaks about Gentiles "obeying the law";

3. Conclusion: Since the Gentile is not subject to the Law of Moses, the Gentile cannot be obeying the Law of Moses - so he (the Gentile) must be obeying another law.

The logic of this cannot be evaded by arguing that Paul, after all does believe the Gentile is subject to the Law of Moses - he clearly states otherwise (as per Romans 2, Ephesians 2, Romans 3, if not other places).

 

[Jethro Bodine]

To revisit my last post. Here is the basic argument that Paul is making (as he makes in Romans 3 and Romans 9).

1. Premise: The Law of Moses was only given to the Jews. This is clear from scripture even though many do not accept it. But, of course, Paul knows it since, unlike so many of us, he actually knows His Bible;

2. Fact: Paul speaks about Gentiles "obeying the law";

3. Conclusion: Since the Gentile is not subject to the Law of Moses, the Gentile cannot be obeying the Law of Moses - so he (the Gentile) must be obeying another law.

The logic of this cannot be evaded by arguing that Paul, after all does believe the Gentile is subject to the Law of Moses - he clearly states otherwise (as per Romans 2, Ephesians 2, Romans 3, if not other places).

The law was given to the people of God. If any gentile wanted to join him or herself to the people of God they were required to submit to the same law as the Jew (I'm thinking Leviticus 15, last few verses?).

God said his people must follow the law to continue in the blessings he has reserved for his people. This includes gentiles who chose to join themselves in covenant with God. The world who is not in covenant with God (and thus technically not subject to the law) is condemned, nonetheless, because they don't belong to the people of God as evidenced by their lawlessness.

This, I believe is the correct understanding of who the law was given to. Lawlessness is the evidence God uses to show a person is not in covenant with him and will not be rescued from the coming Wrath. So it is in that sense the whole world is under the law, but a law which was given to the people of God.

 

[Drew]

The law was given to the people of God. If any gentile wanted to join him or herself to the people of God they were required to submit to the same law as the Jew (I'm thinking Leviticus 15, last few verses?).

I am actually very much aware of this and did not appropriately qualify my assertion (simply to save time). So, yes, some Gentiles - specifically those who were incorporated into Jewish society - were subject to the Law of Moses. But this is a "footnote" - the Law of Moses was given to one "group" and one group only - the Jews and the odd Gentile who was otherwise integrated into their society.

It is simply untrue (Biblically) that the Law of Moses was intended to be adopted by all humanity.

I think I disagree with the rest of your post - you seem to think that any Gentile who wanted to be a "member of the family of the one true God" would thereby become subject to the Law of Moses. I suggest this is not supportable Biblically - it would be only those who were physically incorporated into Jewish society who would come under the dictates of the Law of Moses.

Note this text from Romans 4:

For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 (as it is written, “(Y)A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOUâ€)

Paul is clearly asserting that some believers are not "of the Law". This, and other Pauline material illustrates that one does not come under the Law of Moses by being a child of God - one comes under the Law of Moses by circumstances of birth and or being absorbed into Jewish society. I suggest that it is clear that Paul believes there are Gentiles that are in "the family of God", but who are nevertheless not subject to the Law of Moses.

 

[Elijah674]

The law was given to the people of God. If any gentile wanted to join him or herself to the people of God they were required to submit to the same law as the Jew (I'm thinking Leviticus 15, last few verses?).

God said his people must follow the law to continue in the blessings he has reserved for his people. This includes gentiles who chose to join themselves in covenant with God. The world who is not in covenant with God (and thus technically not subject to the law) is condemned, nonetheless, because they don't belong to the people of God as evidenced by their lawlessness.

This, I believe is the correct understanding of who the law was given to. Lawlessness is the evidence God uses to show a person is not in covenant with him and will not be rescued from the coming Wrath. So it is in that sense the whole world is under the law, but a law which was given to the people of God.

And what does the one do with Gen. 26:5 then? This was long long before any hi/bred Jew came along. + Gen. 12 even finds Abe with gentil converts. (one wonders what some do with the Eternal Gospel of Rev. 14:6??)

Gen. 26
[3] Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
[4] And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
[5] [[[Because that Abraham 'obeyed' my voice]]], and kept my charge, [[[my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.]]]


And Gen. 12..
[4] So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.
[5] And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.


--Elijah

 

[Drew]

On the matter of who is under the Law of Moses:

Romans 3:28-29 demonstrate that Paul believes that only Jews are subject to the Law of Moses. Here is the text:

28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,...

Consider this analogous version of the text, analogous in the sense that the exact same basic argument that Paul is making is applied in another setting:

28 For we maintain that an employee should be promoted in a manner that does not depend on whether they adhere to rule X, 29 Or is the boss going to promote male employees only? Is he not also the promoter of female employees also? Yes, of female employees also,...

I have been very careful to provide an analogy that is indeed a "proper" analogy. Challenge me on this, if you can.

Now: Do I really need to explain that "rule X" has to be a rule that only applies to men? I should not have to. If the writer expects the reader to believe that women are also subject to rule X (as well as men), he would expect the reader to also believe that women could be promoted by following it! Do you see the point? The point is this: If the writer believes the foregoing about the reader's beliefs, he would not refute his earlier claim about employees being promoted for reasons other than adherence to rule X by telling the reader something the reader already believes to be true if indeed all people are subject to rule X, namely that women can be promoted by obeying it! He would need to provide a different reason as to why employees are not promoted based on their following of rule X.

Obvious conclusion: the writer believes, like his reader, that only men are subject to rule X.

Now, translating back into the original text, Paul must see "the Law" as something that only Jews are subject to. Otherwise, verse 29 makes no sense!

Of course, I would slightly qualify this by saying that there were a small number of Gentiles, who by virtue of their integration into Jewish culture not by virtue of "faith in God" who were also under the Law of Moses. But this is a bit of a footnote, and Paul is basically correct to see the Law of Moses as applicable only to Jews.​

 

[Elijah674]

I am actually very much aware of this and did not appropriately qualify my assertion (simply to save time). So, yes, some Gentiles - specifically those who were incorporated into Jewish society - were subject to the Law of Moses. But this is a "footnote" - the Law of Moses was given to one "group" and one group only - the Jews and the odd Gentile who was otherwise integrated into their society.

It is simply untrue (Biblically) that the Law of Moses was intended to be adopted by all humanity.

I think I disagree with the rest of your post - you seem to think that any Gentile who wanted to be a "member of the family of the one true God" would thereby become subject to the Law of Moses. I suggest this is not supportable Biblically - it would be only those who were physically incorporated into Jewish society who would come under the dictates of the Law of Moses.

Note this text from Romans 4:

For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 (as it is written, “(Y)A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOU”)

Paul is clearly asserting that some believers are not "of the Law". This, and other Pauline material illustrates that one does not come under the Law of Moses by being a child of God - one comes under the Law of Moses by circumstances of birth and or being absorbed into Jewish society. I suggest that it is clear that Paul believes there are Gentiles that are in "the family of God", but who are nevertheless not subject to the Law of Moses.

You say.. ' but who are nevertheless not subject to the Law of Moses'.[/QUOTE]
OK, as long as you understand the Heb. 13:20's Eternal Covenant is not involved here! (if you understand that?) And if not what do you do with God having Melchisedec Heb. 7:17 an High Priest that He called, for just starters?

And if the difference is not clearly posted up, what will most all of the Rev. 17:1-5 ones think that you are talking about?

 

[Drew]

Again, on the matter of the Law of Moses being only for Jews:

Is this blessing then on (I)the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For (J)we say, "(K)FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 10How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11and he (L)received the sign of circumcision, (M)a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be (N)the father of (O)all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. 13For (P)the promise to Abraham or to his descendants (Q)that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14For (R)if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; 15for (S)the Law brings about wrath, but (T)where there is no law, there also is no violation. 16For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with (U)grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to (V)all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to (W)those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is (X)the father of us all, 17(as it is written, "(Y)A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOU") in the presence of Him whom he believed, even God, (Z)who gives life to the dead and (AA)calls into being (AB)that which does not exist.

What is Paul's basic argument here? That the true family of God includes both Jews and Gentiles. Paul starts out by stressing that the promised blessing to Abraham's descendents was given before Abraham was marked out by circumcision as father of the nation of Israel. This is absolutely vital to Paul's argument - he wants to make a case that, despite what some Jews may think, the "real" family of Abraham, at least in the sense that is relevant to those who are justified by faith, includes both Jew and Gentile. And this same idea is repeated over and over and over in this text - Abraham's "true" descendents include both Jew and Gentile. Fine.

Now for the relevant point. It is clear beyond dispute from verse 16 that Paul sees Jews as those who are "of the Law". If he believed that Gentiles were "of the Law" as well, his argument would not make any sense at all.

If the Law of Moses is for both Jew and Gentile - look at what we have Paul saying in verse 16:

so that the promise will be guaranteed toall the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law (that is all believers, Jew or Gentile), but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham

So, please tell us, exactly who are these "of the faith of Abraham"? On your take that the Law of Moses applies to Gentile believers as well as to Jewish ones, there is no believer who is not "of the law". So who is Paul talking about when he clearly marks out a different group as being those "of the faith of Abraham"?

I politely suggest that this is the proper interpretation:

so that the promise will be guaranteed toall the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law (that is, Jewish believers), but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham (that is, Gentile believers who, while not "ethnic" children like Jews, do indeed share Abraham's faith).

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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... (Romans 3:19 NASB)

Sin is what puts us all 'under the law'. All people are under, and condemned by the law, even if the only law of Moses you have conscious knowledge of is the law of Moses revealed through conscience (e.g., 'do not murder'), and nature (e.g., 'a man should not lie with another man') according to Romans 2:12-16.