The Law

[Jethro Bodine]

[14] Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. Rev. 22

OK: This is the way that 'i' see it!
--Elijah

You are obligated by conscience to do what you think you are required to do in regard to the law of Moses.

 

[Elijah674]

You are obligated by conscience to do what you think you are required to do in regard to the law of Moses.

There is the Truth as seen in 2 Cor. 4 (again, you are not very clear!)
[1] Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
[2] But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

And I post this verse for all the FORUM to again know that you know that 'i' know the ETERNAL DIFFERENCE between The Godheads ETERNAL Ten Comments Law, & the one that was nailed to the cross of Christ that Moses penned himself in a book & put in the [side of the Ark] not inside where the Royal Law of God is STILL at in heaven!!

--Elijah

 

[Former Christian]

Jethro Bodine

Ephesians 2:15 (KJV) 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;
Ephesians 2:15 (ESV) by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,
Ephesians 2:15 (NAS95) by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,
Ephesians 2:15 (NIVUS) by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,
Ephesians 2:15 (RSV) by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,

This verse in its context says the Law has been abolished (abrogated, retired, whatever) for the purpose of uniting the circumcised and the uncircumcised, the Jews and the Gentiles. If I understand you correctly, you distinguish between the ceremonial law and the moral law. Not even mentioning whether the dietary law is a part of either or a separate law like the other two. Eph 2:15 is a blanket statement that includes the whole Law. What are your thoughts on Eph 2:15?

FC

 

[Drew]

Fonts are too small, I have glaucoma.

I will see what I can do. I am "of a certain age" and I can appreciate the difficulty in reading tiny text.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If I understand you correctly, you distinguish between the ceremonial law and the moral law. Not even mentioning whether the dietary law is a part of either or a separate law like the other two.

I mentioned it briefly. I can dig it up from my past posts later.

The dietary laws are part of the cleanliness laws. The worship, cleanliness, and separation laws were what governed how, when, and where a person could, and should stay in covenant and fellowship with God...and whom. Those are stipulations of the old, or first covenant. Now faith in Christ, the New Covenant, is the 'how, when, and where, and whom' of staying in covenant and fellowship with God, and it includes all men and women, Jew and gentile, without discrimination based on those criteria.

Eph 2:15 is a blanket statement that includes the whole Law. What are your thoughts on Eph 2:15?

FC

I think Paul means exactly what he's saying. The law of Moses and all it's rabbinical add-on's, which discriminated according to sex and nationality, has been replaced with a New Covenant that does not discriminate according to those things.

Faith in Christ is the great equalizer that unifies all mankind evenly and equally before God. The limitations of the law of Moses are no longer binding on people who are at perfect peace, and in perfect fellowship with God through the body and blood of Christ. Those old stipulations have no meaning and no application for people brought near to God perfectly and forever through the blood of Christ. A Holy Day, or what you eat, or how you worship can not determine or affect that which God has done through the New Way of faith in Christ.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

There is the Truth as seen in 2 Cor. 4 (again, you are not very clear!)
[1] Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
[2] But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

And I post this verse for all the FORUM to again know that you know that 'i' know the ETERNAL DIFFERENCE between The Godheads ETERNAL Ten Comments Law, & the one that was nailed to the cross of Christ that Moses penned himself in a book...

Moses penned what God gave him on the mountain for him to write down.

You have decided that because God himself wrote the Ten Commandments they must be eternal, but since Moses wrote down the details those are temporary. You are certainly entitled to that opinion, but as far as I know the Bible itself does not say that's what the significance is of who wrote what.

And you do know the Eternal Covenant is the blood of Christ, not the Ten Commandments, right?

 

[Elijah674]

Jethro Bodine

Ephesians 2:15 (KJV) 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;

Ephesians 2:15 (ESV) by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,

Ephesians 2:15 (NAS95) by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,

Ephesians 2:15 (NIVUS) by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,

Ephesians 2:15 (RSV) by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,

This verse in its context says the Law has been abolished (abrogated, retired, whatever) for the purpose of uniting the circumcised and the uncircumcised, the Jews and the Gentiles. If I understand you correctly, you distinguish between the ceremonial law and the moral law. Not even mentioning whether the dietary law is a part of either or a separate law like the other two. Eph 2:15 is a blanket statement that includes the whole Law. What are your thoughts on Eph 2:15?

FC

Hi! (;)) (do you not use the K.J.??)
Good verses, but they (most here) might read that Truth with/out even 'seeing' what they (whoever 'they' might be??) are addressing! SO: Let me just high/lite a word or two for them??

God WROTE ONE LAW ON [TWO] TABLES OF STONE. They are a PATTERN from Their ETERNAL ORIGINAL! (Heb. 9:23 + **Heb. 8:5, and see Rev. 11:19 + Rev. 22:8-9 for what the angels [[OBEY!]].

God has this LAW RECREATED in the Born Again ones Heart. Heb. 10:15-16 + Heb. 8:10.

And again: Abe in Gen. 26:5 is LONG before they were even penned in Stone for the Jew. Even then, the forth commandment had REMEMBER with its start. Remember from where?? Up until this time God spake DIRECTLY with His 'own'.

I will put up Gen. 26:5 again for this. Because most will not even look up the verses unless done so. ('i' think that you are an exception)

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.

Again, there are laws in this verse even besides the ONLY ONE THAT GOD HIMSELF PENNED!

And you mention 'some' laws?? Even befor the flood, God seperated the clean from the unclean. + Abe paid tithes to the one of God's verbal appointment, and health laws?? Surely these are still 'somewhat' around hopefully?

And 'IF' God can be believed in the Eccl. 1:9-10 + Eccl. 3:15 verses as said before, we can readily see where sin originated as in heaven itself. Even note from the 1/2 & 1/3 of Rev. 12 & Matt. 25's first verse? And the 'REMNANT' in between???

The FOCAL point is as seen in Isa. 8:20 for whatGOD HIMSELF WROTE + SPAKE, and THEN PUT INTO SOME HEARTS....

Deut. 5
[22] These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and [[he added no more.]] And [[he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.]]

These TEN have been written in several places! And NEVER has anything of the other laws been seen with 'this work' of God. They even have been recorded in SPEECH.

And Friend, it is to be seen that there are TWO TABLES of the deacologe. The first & the second, the first great commandment is found to be our FIRST DUTY to GOD, and the second is our duty to God + our duty to MANKIND. (read it in Matt. 22:35-40 in Christ's Word)

---Elijah

PS: Later you might see Acts 15:1 + verse 5 for what this was [[ALL ABOUT?]] It was Moses law as stated in verse 1. ('after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 'The ten commandments are never even hinted at.

 

[Drew]

Hello Jethro:

While I am sympathetic to your arguments, I think that it is Biblically misleading to suggest that Gentile are under any "part" of the Law of Moses. Yes, I fully agree that the Law of Moses says "do not murder" and that the Gentile is aware of the moral imperative to not murder. I have argued the case appealing to a Canada-US metaphor. You have responded, suggesting that a better metaphor is a "multi-jurisdiction" model.

The problem with that is the clear Biblical tradition that Israel is indeed a nation set apart. In the book of Leviticus, God tells the Jews to obey the Law essentially to set Israel apart from the other nations. In Romans 3 (verses 28 and 29) Paul argues that if salvation were based on "works of the Law", then only Jews could be saved. This shows a clear belief on the part of Paul: Gentiles are in no way "under the Law of Moses". If they were, then Paul would need to heavily qualify his statement. In other words, he would need to give us something like this variation of what he actually writes in those two verse:

28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the specifically ceremonial 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

But this is not what Paul writes; there is no qualification, strongly suggesting that the Gentile is, in no sense, "under the jurisdiction" of the Law of Moses.

So, I suggest, the "Canada-US" metaphor is indeed the correct way to look at this issue.

Now, I obviously understand that at several places - not least Romans 2 - Paul speaks of Gentiles "doing the things required by the Law of Moses". But, and this is key, one can "obey" a law without being under its jurisdiction. Example: a Canadian who follows American law, even if there is no parallel Canadian law.

There is a strong Biblical tradition - both in the Old Testament and in Paul - of the Law of Moses being given to Jews and for them only. There is no wisp of Biblical evidence that the Law of Moses, in any way whatsoever, is something that Gentiles are in any sense "under". When someone says that the Gentile is under the jurisdiction of the Law of Moses, they are going beyond what the Scriptures actually say and are actually working against Paul in that Paul makes unqualified statements about how the Gentile is not under the Law. It is, of course, possible that Paul is being "careless" in his terminology, but I very much doubt it. Paul is a very skilled and careful writer. He repeatedly sets the Jew "under the law", with no hint whatsoever that the Gentile is also under at least parts of it.

That silence should be deafening. I just can't believe that Paul would be so stark in his drawing a Jew / Gentile distinction based on the Law of Moses if he actually believed that the Gentile was also under it, even in a limited sense.

 

[Former Christian]

Jethro Bodine

Response to #245

I think Paul means exactly what he's saying <Eph 2:15>. The law of Moses and all it's rabbinical add-on's, which discriminated according to sex and nationality, has been replaced with a New Covenant that does not discriminate according to those things.

Doesn’t that include the moral law?

Why do you think the Law of Moses, is discriminatory?

Do you think the Law of Moses is the same as the Law of God, or something different?

The dietary laws are part of the cleanliness laws.

How did you determine that the dietary laws are part of the cleanliness laws?

The dietary laws are part of the cleanliness laws. The worship, cleanliness, and separation laws were what governed how, when, and where a person could, and should stay in covenant and fellowship with God...and whom. Those are stipulations of the old, or first covenant.

How did you determine what constitutes the “worship, cleanliness, and separation lawsâ€, and that they only belong to the first covenant?

Now faith in Christ, the New Covenant, is the 'how, when, and where, and whom' of staying in covenant and fellowship with God, and it includes all men and women, Jew and gentile, without discrimination based on those criteria.

Is faith in Christ the only stipulation under the second covenant?

Are there no commandments for the Christians to follow, to use as a guide for their lives?

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Elijah674

Response to #247

(do you not use the K.J.??)

You one of them there KJV Onlyists?

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

Response to #248

Since the immediate context of Romans 3:28-31 is justification, couldn’t it also be possible that this is all Paul is referring to? That one is justified apart from the Law? But that the Law is established by a law of faith, whatever is the faith that justifies?

FC

 

[Drew]

Drew

Response to #248

Since the immediate context of Romans 3:28-31 is justification, couldn’t it also be possible that this is all Paul is referring to? That one is justified apart from the Law? But that the Law is established by a law of faith, whatever is the faith that justifies?

FC

I think it is indisputable that "law" in verse 28 is the Law of Moses. Do you disagree?

And I think it is clear that Paul's statement forces us to conclude that he understands only Jews are subject to this law. Do you disagree.

Yes, the issue is justification. And yes, Paul speaks of a "law of faith". But I repeat: it is clear that the "law" addressed in verse 28 in particular must be the Law of Moses, and not any "law of faith".

 

[Free]

The author of Hebrews makes a very fine distinction when he explains for us how, for example, the law of the Day Of Atonement is no longer a recurring obligation to people who have been totally and forever made perfect and freed from the guilt of sin through faith in Jesus Christ.

It is no longer an obligation for anyone regardless of whether or not they believe in Christ. The author of Hebrews, in chapter 7, makes it clear that Jesus's priesthood replaces the Levitical system.

This certainly is not true in regard to not keeping the law 'do not murder'. In fact, Paul explains in Romans 13 how that is a never-ending debt of law we owe ('do no harm to your neighbor'). There really is a clear Biblical case for discerning various aspects of law and how they continue, or don't continue, in this New Covenant.

I'm not sure if you're saying that the Law regarding murder is still binding. One must be careful in making such claims as there are problems with saying that something is morally wrong because God has said it is--"divine command theory". One problem is that this would give people a basis for saying "the Bible doesn't say doing X is wrong, therefore doing X is okay." But more than that, things are morally wrong based on the holiness and righteousness of God and are wrong even if God has not said such. This is why even without the Law murder is still wrong and if the Bible doesn't say that doing X is wrong, it may still be the case that it is wrong.

Anyway, just thought I would throw that out there. I'm really not following the discussion and perhaps shouldn't have interjected.

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

I think it is indisputable that "law" in verse 28 is the Law of Moses. Do you disagree?

If by that you mean that which is also called the Law of God, I don’t disagree.

And I think it is clear that Paul's statement forces us to conclude that he understands only Jews are subject to this law. Do you disagree.

Under the first covenant, the Jews only and not the Gentiles were under the Law even though at least a part of that law was a part of Gentile conscience. But under the second covenant all who are in Christ are under the Law by virtue of being in Christ, who was not only under the Law, but kept it and fulfilled it, just as those who are in Christ are intended to do through walking by the Spirit. That is what is under contention, is it not? So at this point I neither agree nor disagree.

Yes, the issue is justification. And yes, Paul speaks of a "law of faith". But I repeat: it is clear that the "law" addressed in verse 28 in particular must be the Law of Moses, and not any "law of faith".

I agree that the Law that is established is not the same as the law of faith. Since it is the law of faith that establishes the Law that is established.

FC

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Hello Jethro:

While I am sympathetic to your arguments, I think that it is Biblically misleading to suggest that Gentile are under any "part" of the Law of Moses. Yes, I fully agree that the Law of Moses says "do not murder" and that the Gentile is aware of the moral imperative to not murder. I have argued the case appealing to a Canada-US metaphor. You have responded, suggesting that a better metaphor is a "multi-jurisdiction" model.

My analogy is better because when Jews commit murder and gentiles commit murder, even though one 'has' the law and the other doesn't, they both are condemned by the same authority. This is not true in the case of a murderer in Canada and one in the United States.

 

[Webb]

All the 10 commandments with the exception of the 4th (the sdabbath) have been carried over into the NT and some of them even enlarged upon.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

There is no wisp of Biblical evidence that the Law of Moses, in any way whatsoever, is something that Gentiles are in any sense "under". When someone says that the Gentile is under the jurisdiction of the Law of Moses, they are going beyond what the Scriptures actually say and are actually working against Paul in that Paul makes unqualified statements about how the Gentile is not under the Law.

Is the following only true for Jews?

9 We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers..." (1 Timothy 1:9-10 NIV1984)

Does the law only condemn Jews?

Gentiles and Jews alike are condemned by the same law, and the same Lawgiver and Judge. For those who 'have' the law (have knowledge of the law) the trespass is increased.

 

[Elijah674]

Elijah674

Response to #247



You one of them there KJV Onlyists?

FC

No, not only. But that did not answer my question to you, did it?!

I like my two in one (Vol. 1 + 2) Jewish Bible better than most perhaps. (No NT & it goes from right to left though) But I put it well above my Douay one, but the main flaws with the Catholic denomination is their flawed catecism + doctrines as I see it.

Yet in all of these there is still enough Truth to find OBEDIENCE TO CHRIST ALONE! But yes, I do use the K.J. mostly.

I find that the today ones mostly like to first look at the Jer. 17:5 ones for their pet 'DESIRES' of Gen. 4:7, and then pick and choose what best fits their DESIRED agenda. And of all of these from Rev. 17:1-5 there are surely enough of dis/unity to be found! All kind of Commentaries with hardly any two in full agreement of anything much. Yet God see's it totally different! For they are in satan's unity as seen in Matt. 6:24.

OK: Again, with all of this from heavens rebellion to earths courtroom, these ALL will be tried by the Lord's Eternal Law! James 2:12

[12] So speak ye, and so do, [[as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.]]

And if you do not know what law that is?? see ibid 8-12.

--Elijah

 

[Former Christian]

Elijah674

No, not only. But that did not answer my question to you, did it?!

I am relieved to hear that.

Knowing something of the Greek allows me to more and more read the NT directly from the Greek. I don't know Hebrew and must depend on the kindness of strangers in that regard. And when reading the OT, I also generally read the KJV because of familiarity, with it's good points, as well as the bad.

When posting responses, I tend to use the translation used by the one I'm responding to. Unless I feel another translation translates the Greek better.


I read and follow your posts with great difficulty. What is your question that I failed to answer due to the fact i was unaware of it's existence?

FC

 

[Elijah674]

From post 247..

FC Hi! (;)) (do you not use the K.J.??)
Good verses, but they (most here) might read that Truth with/out even 'seeing' what they (whoever 'they' might be??) are addressing! SO: Let me just high/lite a word or two for them?? ...'