THERE IS ONLY ONE DEFINITION FOR SIN!!!

[Drew]

Rom.3
[20] Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

When Paul speaks about 'the deeds of the Law', he is only talking about the Deeds of the Sacrificial Law, sometimes know as the Levitical Priesthood Law, for only those of the tribe of Levi could perform sacrifices.

So in the first part of the sentence Paul is talking about (1) law; the sacrificial law.

How do you know this? I see no evidence that Paul is talking about one part of the Law to the exclusion of the other elements of the Law:

And in the other part Paul is talking about ALL of Gods other laws like this one:

Rom.7
[7] What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Indeed. As my argument shows, this demonstrates that Paul is using the word "sin" in a manner other than law-breaking. You have not engaged my argument. If it is wrong, it can be shown to be wrong. So please, where is the error in my argument about Romans 3:20?

 

[Drew]

Drew, I just have to say this:

The NIV passage you quoted is more a paraphrase than a literal interpretation. It's a thought for thought reading more than it is word for word and honestly, it's a very poor interpretation. They did an injustice to the interpretation of this passage and as a result, to it's true scriptural meaning.

They did more than just break a command, they broke a covenant with God! In Romans 5:14 is a reference to this:

Hosea 6:7 But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.

Fair enough, but I have been clear that my position is sustained even without Romans 5:14. Forget Romans 5:14. What Paul says in Romans 3:20 demonstrates that Paul cannot see sin as simply law-breaking.

And there is plenty of stuff from Romans 7 that shows that Paul sees sin as an active, almost personal force. There is an abundance of evidence - sin is not simply the judicial judgement that a law has been broken. Sometime the writers of Scripture use the word that way. But there are plenty of examples, like this one, where "sin" cannot simply be any kind of judicial determination that a law has been broken:

3For what the Law could not do, (H)weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,..

A judicial determination that a law has been broken is not the kind of thing that God would condemn. The only kind of things can be condemned are "entities, powers, or agencies". So, here at least, Paul cannot be seeing sin as "law-breaking".

Remember that "sin" here is the target of God's condemnation. The determination, the judgement, that Fred broke a speeding law is not a sensible target of condemnation. Fred might be, but not a judgement about Fred.

 

[Eccl12and13]

Rom.7
[7] What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Indeed. As my argument shows, this demonstrates that Paul is using the word "sin" in a manner other than law-breaking. You have not engaged my argument. If it is wrong, it can be shown to be wrong. So please, where is the error in my argument about Romans 3:20?

Sorry Drew, you are just not making any sense right now.

Are you saying that in this verse: "I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet."

Paul is using the word "SIN' in a manner OTHER THAN BREAKING GODS LAW????

If anything Drew, this is the very DEFINITION OF SIN!

What Paul is saying is that, "I did not know what sin was until I found the Law. I did not know that lusting was wrong until I read the Law and it said, 'Thou shalt not covet'"

If you can not see that, and it is obvious that you can not, I really don't see the need in answering anymore of your replies.

Oh yeah......"Good luck with that!"

 

[Drew]

Sorry Drew, you are just not making any sense right now.

Please carefully read my argument about Romans 3:20 - it shows that Paul could not have used the word "sin" in that context as denoting law-breaking. Please address the argument and show where it is wrong. I believe the argument is both clear and concise.

Are you saying that in this verse: "I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet."

Paul is using the word "SIN' in a manner OTHER THAN BREAKING GODS LAW????

If anything Drew, this is the very DEFINITION OF SIN!

No. You seem to read Paul as saying that the "law" causes sin to come into existence as a judicial determination, since sin is by your understanding, only "law-breaking".

I am pointing out that Paul is saying that sin enjoyed an existence on its own and that "law" enabled Paul to see sin for what it is. But sin still existed before the law gave Paul knowledge of sin.

What Paul is saying is that, "I did not know what sin was until I found the Law. I did not know that lusting was wrong until I read the Law and it said, 'Thou shalt not covet'"

You are making my point for me. Perhaps you did intend to write what you wrote here, but when you say "I did not know what sin was until I found the Law", you are asserting that sin had a self-existence prior to the advent of the Law. When I say "I did not know about amoebas until I got a microscope", I am definitely not saying that amoebas did not exist prior to my getting the microscope.

If you can not see that, and it is obvious that you can not, I really don't see the need in answering anymore of your replies.

Oh yeah......"Good luck with that!"

To be frank, it clearly you who is making a number of errors here.

And, of course, you have not engaged my Romans 3:20 argument.

 

[Eccl12and13]

Drew, I just have to say this:

The NIV passage you quoted is more a paraphrase than a literal interpretation. It's a thought for thought reading more than it is word for word and honestly, it's a very poor interpretation. They did an injustice to the interpretation of this passage and as a result, to it's true scriptural meaning.

They did more than just break a command, they broke a covenant with God! In Romans 5:14 is a reference to this:

Hosea 6:7 But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.

Fair enough, but I have been clear that my position is sustained even without Romans 5:14. Forget Romans 5:14. What Paul says in Romans 3:20 demonstrates that Paul cannot see sin as simply law-breaking.

And there is plenty of stuff from Romans 7 that shows that Paul sees sin as an active, almost personal force. There is an abundance of evidence - sin is not simply the judicial judgement that a law has been broken. Sometime the writers of Scripture use the word that way. But there are plenty of examples, like this one, where "sin" cannot simply be any kind of judicial determination that a law has been broken:

3For what the Law could not do, (H)weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,..

A judicial determination that a law has been broken is not the kind of thing that God would condemn. The only kind of things can be condemned are "entities, powers, or agencies". So, here at least, Paul cannot be seeing sin as "law-breaking".

Remember that "sin" here is the target of God's condemnation. The determination, the judgement, that Fred broke a speeding law is not a sensible target of condemnation. Fred might be, but not a judgement about Fred.

OK! THIS is the last reply:

Rom.8
[3] For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

The law Paul is talking about is the sacrificial law, the flesh being the flesh of the animals and the shedding of their blood.

The next part is talking about the flesh of Jesus Christ, and it was the shedding of His blood that condemned sin.

Paul speaks of this in the following:

Heb.7
[12] For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

The law had to be changed to allow Christ to becaome our High Priest. The law that said this was the Levitical/Sacrificial Law. Only one from the tribe of Levi could perform sacrifices.

[19] For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

The 'Levitical/Sacrificial Law' could not make the people perfect.

Heb.10
[4] For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Killing bulls and goats could not take sin away.

[11] If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Because if killing bulls and goats could do it, why have another priest come.

[26] For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
[27] Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

But we now have a high priest that did (1) sacrifice (1) time for all.

Heb.10
[5] Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
[8] Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

Because God never had pleasure in killing bulls and goats.

And since He did not like it and since they could not remove sin, this is what God did:

Col.2
[14] Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

God took the sacrifices out of the way at the cross. Once Chirst died there was no more need of sacrifices. And that is why the following happened:

Matt. 27
[51] And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

No more veil means no more sacrifices. This was even foretold in the OT:

Dan.9
[27] And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,

Notice God's Moral Law did not cease. Nor did God's dietary Laws cease. Not even God's Ceremonial Laws (Only the sacrifices that were to be performed for them ceased)!

So there you have it, AGAIN!

 

[Drew]

Rom.8
[3] For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

The law Paul is talking about is the sacrificial law, the flesh being the flesh of the animals and the shedding of their blood.

You have given the reader no reason at all to support your assertion that Paul is here referring specifically only to the "sacrificial" component of Torah and is not talking about all of Torah. Do you expect us to simply take your word for this?

After all, it is quite natural to see Paul here as saying "the law 'do not covet' could not give life since it acted on weak, fallen flesh". And, of course, the law against coveting is not a sacrificial law.

You seem to assume that since Jesus was Himself a sacrifice, this means that only sacrificial elements of the Law are in view in the first part of the verse.

The next part is talking about the flesh of Jesus Christ, and it was the shedding of His blood that condemned sin.

Paul speaks of this in the following:

Heb.7
[12] For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

The law had to be changed to allow Christ to becaome our High Priest. The law that said this was the Levitical/Sacrificial Law. Only one from the tribe of Levi could perform sacrifices.

Again, you seem to draw connections without underlying justification. We all agree that Jesus' death effected the condemnation of sin. But you ignore the fact that it is simply a category error to talk about "condemning" a judicial determination - I have already argued this point - and you simply claim that "condemnation of sin on the cross" equals abolition of a specific component of the law (the sacrifcial law).

The fact that the writer of Hebrews does indeed give a treatment of law centred around the priesthood and the overturning of sacrificial law is not grounds for inserting "sin = breaking the sacrificial law" back into Romans 8.

Using that kind of reasoning, I could equally well take Jesus overturning of the food laws (in Mark 7) and conclude that "sin = breaking the kosher laws", read that back into Romans 8 and conclude that the kosher laws were condemned at Calvary.

It is indeed true that the cross eliminated the sacrificial law. But it did retired all the other elements of the Law as well.

Your argument seems to be:

1. Sin is condemned at the Cross (Romans 8:3)
2. We know that the sacrificial component of Torah is done away with
3. We know that sin can only denote law-breaking
4. Therefore, by 2 and 3, we conclude that the "condemnation of sin at the cross" had to consist in the abolition of the sacrificial law, and nothing more.

Point 3 has never been established by you, and in fact is clearly discredited by an argument I have given in relation to Romans 3:20.

Even if sin were only "law-breaking", there is no reason to pick sacrificial law, and sacrificial law alone, as the specific component of Torah done away at the cross. Why? Because other elements of the Law, such as the kosher laws, were also done away with at the cross.

 

[Eccl12and13]

Even if sin were only "law-breaking", there is no reason to pick sacrificial law, and sacrificial law alone, as the specific component of Torah done away at the cross. Why? Because other elements of the Law, such as the kosher laws, were also done away with at the cross.

Col.2
[14] Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

God never had pleasure in the Sacrificial Law. The Sacrificial Law could never take away sin.

Can you name me ANY OTHER LAW that God had no pleasure in, nor could do the job it was intended to do? The Sacrificial Law is the ONLY ONE! Now can you find ANY OTHER LAW that was against us and contrary to us? Again, the Sacrificial Law is the ONLY ONE!

But I'm sure you will find it as soon as you find that other definition of sin!

 

[Drew]

Even if sin were only "law-breaking", there is no reason to pick sacrificial law, and sacrificial law alone, as the specific component of Torah done away at the cross. Why? Because other elements of the Law, such as the kosher laws, were also done away with at the cross.

Col.2
[14] Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

God never had pleasure in the Sacrificial Law. The Sacrificial Law could never take away sin.

True enough, but you seem to have merely transported your assumption that only a specific part of the Torah has been abolished over to Colossians 2. I see every reason to understand the "handwriting of ordnances" to denote the whole of Torah.

Can you name me ANY OTHER LAW that God had no pleasure in, nor could do the job it was intended to do? The Sacrificial Law is the ONLY ONE! Now can you find ANY OTHER LAW that was against us and contrary to us? Again, the Sacrificial Law is the ONLY ONE!

Absolutely not - the entirety of Torah is against the Jew. In Romans 7, Paul clearly gives a counter-example to your assertion here:

7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire.

Paul is directly answering your questions.

You asked "Can you name me ANY OTHER LAW that God had no pleasure in, nor could do the job it was intended to do?"

Well, the non-sacrificial law against coveting could not "do what it was intended to do". Paul here is quite clear - the law against coveting actually amplified his desire to covet.

You asked: "Now can you find ANY OTHER LAW that was against us and contrary to us?"

The law against coveting was "against the Jew" precisely because, as Paul so clearly explains, it has the strange effect of increasing the desire to covet.

And as far as the matter of "definitions of sin", I will repeat: there is no exegetical rule that a concept has to be explicitly defined in order for it to be real.

 

[Vic C.]

Oh I don't know Ecc... Daniel 9:27 and Col. 2:14 seems to be bad proof texts for your case. Daniel doesn't establish much outside of the fact that the the covenant changes in a vary dramatic way at the Cross. 9:27 isn't a verse one would use to determine doctrine; rather it is used to determine the timing of events that would reshape doctrine.

Col. 2:14 only tells us that the penalty for our transgressions was paid upon Jesus' death on the cross; in effect, our penalty (the handwriting of ordinances) has been completely blotted out. Our sines and their penalty cease to exist.

 

[Eccl12and13]

Oh I don't know Ecc... Daniel 9:27 and Col. 2:14 seems to be bad proof texts for your case. Daniel doesn't establish much outside of the fact that the the covenant changes in a vary dramatic way at the Cross. 9:27 isn't a verse one would use to determine doctrine; rather it is used to determine the timing of events that would reshape doctrine.

Col. 2:14 only tells us that the penalty for our transgressions was paid upon Jesus' death on the cross; in effect, our penalty (the handwriting of ordinances) has been completely blotted out. Our sines and their penalty cease to exist.

Dan.9 states that one thing and one thing only would be ended by the Messiah "sacrifice and the oblation"! You say it states a dramatic change. But wouldn't you say, not only is it a dramatic change, but also a very specific change as well.

God could have inspired the writer to right anything he wanted. Just as easily as he wrote "sacrifice and the oblation", he could have written, dietary law, or the laws of feast days. But God had the holy spirit tell the writer to write; "sacrifice and the oblation to cease" and nothing else.

Now move on to the death of Christ. Of all the things that happened right after Christ died, the one thing that each writer wrote was:

Matt.27
[51] And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
Mark 15
[38] And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.
Luke 23
[45] And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.

Have you ever wondered, of all the things that were happening, why would that, simingly small detail, be important?

Now I'm sure one could say that it was a coincident that the writers made sure that was printed. But is that what the scriptures say?

2 Tim. 3
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

So yes one can say, 'coincident'! But I MUST believe that the mentioning of the veil ripping in two was for our benefit: ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY THE INSPIRATION OF GOD! And we are to use ALL scripture for "doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction..."

Now along with ALL of the above, you have the fact that "sacrifice and the oblation" could not remove sin, nor did God have any pleasure in it:

Heb.10
[4] For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
[8] Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

Now let's now move to Col. to see if we can find something that would give us any indication that what Paul said in Heb. could be related to what he tells us in Col.

You said that, "Col. 2:14 only tells us that the penalty for our transgressions was paid upon Jesus' death on the cross; in effect, our penalty (the handwriting of ordinances) has been completely blotted out. Our sines and their penalty cease to exist.

But you still left out scripture. Scripture that we are instructed to use ALL of. Let's read ALL of the verse:

Col.2
[14] Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

So not only were these laws removed, they were against us and contrary to us. And what did God do? He CEASED THEM AT THE CROSS! Coincident?

Now would you say the Sacraficial law was for us or against us? What good was it if it could not do the job of removing sins? These laws we contrary to us. Not to mention that God never liked doing in the first place. The law was only to be around for a little while:

Heb.10
[1] For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

So the law, made with sacrifices, could not make the comers thereunto perfect.

Looks like we have an aweful lot of coincidences here:

- The Messiah would stop sacrifices ONLY.
- The veil where ONLY sacrifices take place was torn into to pieces.
- Not only was it torn in two but it happened right after Christ, the Messiah, died.
- Paul tells us that God never liked the killing of bulls and goats.
- The killing of bulls and goats could not take away sin.
- The law of sacrifice could NOT make the comers perfect.
- The law was only a shadow of things to come.
- THE SET OF ORDINANCES THAT WERE AGAINST US WERE NAILED TO THE CROSS!

I think Dan. and Col. are PERFECT proof texts for my case!

Then again.....it ALL could be just an coincident!

Thanks for reading and the reply.

Not trying to change minds! ONLY God can do that! But I am trying to offer a different view. One that I know most on the forum are not used to.

 

[YellowcakeMutant]

Hello all,

Interesting subject. Although I think it is wise and necessary to define terms, I also think that the original language should be consulted as that can provide keen insights into the meanings of words. Just like any other word, the definition of the Greek word used for sin--hamartia--provides valuable insights. It means the following (taken from http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=266):

1. equivalent to 264
1. to be without a share in
2. to miss the mark
3. to err, be mistaken
4. to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong
5. to wander from the law of God, violate God's law, sin
2. that which is done wrong, sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act
3. collectively, the complex or aggregate of sins committed either by a single person or by many

The word "sin" encompasses much more than mere lawlessness.

YM

 

[Drew]

Dan.9 states that one thing and one thing only would be ended by the Messiah "sacrifice and the oblation"! You say it states a dramatic change. But wouldn't you say, not only is it a dramatic change, but also a very specific change as well.

God could have inspired the writer to right anything he wanted. Just as easily as he wrote "sacrifice and the oblation", he could have written, dietary law, or the laws of feast days. But God had the holy spirit tell the writer to write; "sacrifice and the oblation to cease" and nothing else.

This is not a valid argument. Here is the text from the NASB:

And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."

It is, of course, true that this text only says that the sacrificial law ceases. But it is not correct to therefore assume that other elements of the law do not stop as well. It appears that the context - one where atonement for iniquity is on the table -determines that Daniel will remark on the passing of the sacrificial law in particular. If something else were under discussion - say the issue of food purity - the writer may well have mentioned the end of the kosher laws instead. The context determines what Daniel writes.

Let's say Fred has broken up with his gifriend Jane. Fred and his friends are out late. He remarks "Now that Jane and I are broken up, her "rule" that I not stay out late with "the boys" is now abolished."

Does that mean that the rest of Jane's rules still apply? That Fred is not allowed to wear torn shirts, or has to call her every night at 10 PM? Of course not! Fred has made his remark in context, and it would be very strange for him to list all the elements of "Jane's Law" that have been abolished, since they are not relevant to the matter at hand - Fred staying out late with the boys.

 

[Drew]

Now move on to the death of Christ. Of all the things that happened right after Christ died, the one thing that each writer wrote was:

Matt.27
[51] And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
Mark 15
[38] And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.
Luke 23
[45] And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.

Have you ever wondered, of all the things that were happening, why would that, simingly small detail, be important?

Same thing here. There are contextual reasons to focus on the ending of the sacrficial system. Jesus has just died as God's self-sacrifice to solve the Adamic sin problem. Therefore, it is appropriate to make a comment on how this means that what the sacrificial system always foreshadowed has come to fulfillment.

But this does not mean that other elements of the Law are not done away with. Jesus enacts the end of the kosher laws in Mark 7. And Paul declares that the guardianship of Torah has come to an end. Part of this is the sacrificial law, but that is only part of what is retired.

 

[Eccl12and13]

The context determines what Daniel writes.

Drew. I must go with scriptures:

2 Pet.1
[21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The 'Context' does not determine what Daniel writes...the Holy Ghost does!

As I said before in my post, if want to think ALL of these events just happened to happen, then so be it.

But I bet if you gave these same set of events to an actuary, they would have a hard time trying to see things your way.

 

[Vic C.]

Mat 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

This what it's all about; revering HE who gives you life and a means of salvation and loving those who think they are above you and especially those who are less fortunate and in need. It's not about condemning people with Laws that we are not able to uphold because the very Law you use to condemn others also condemns you as well.

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Acts 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

 

[Eccl12and13]

Mat 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

This what it's all about; revering HE who gives you life and a means of salvation and loving those who think they are above you and especially those who are less fortunate and in need. It's not about condemning people with Laws that we are not able to uphold because the very Law you use to condemn others also condemns you as well.

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Acts 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

But, WHICH law of Moses could not justify? Paul tells us. Let's read:

Heb.7
[19] For the law made nothing perfect,
[11] If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

So we see the Law spoken of is the Law of the Levites. And what was the job of the Levites?

Heb.10
[4] For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

To perform sacrifices. But could those sacrifices justify the people? Let's read:

[1] For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

So the Law of the Priesthood could not make the people perfect. And the job of the Priesthood was to perform sacrifices. That was their job. That was their 'works' or 'deeds' of the law. Hence the following:

Gal.2
[16] Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Rom.3
[20] Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
[28] Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

These verses are saying the samething as the scripture you quoted:

Acts 13
[39] And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

So since the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin, those deeds could not justify man.

It was the Law of the Levitical Priesthood that Paul was talking about and ONLY that Law.

 

[Drew]

But, WHICH law of Moses could not justify? Paul tells us. Let's read:

Heb.7
[19] For the law made nothing perfect,
[11] If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

So we see the Law spoken of is the Law of the Levites.

This is not correct. You cannot simply look for text that deals with the elimination of the sacrificial law and assume that it is only the sacrficial law that has been abolished.

Vic provided a text which rather clearly referred to the entirety of Torah:

Acts 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

The material in Hebrews treats the matter of the sacrificial law. But this does not mean that other elements of the Torah are not also retired.

In Mark 7, Jesus pronounces the end of the kosher food laws. If I applied your reasoning, I could say "Look, it is only the kosher laws that have been abolished."

I believe that the scriptures teach that the entirety of the written code of Torah has been abolished.

 

[Eccl12and13]

But, WHICH law of Moses could not justify? Paul tells us. Let's read:

Heb.7
[19] For the law made nothing perfect,
[11] If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

So we see the Law spoken of is the Law of the Levites.

This is not correct. You cannot simply look for text that deals with the elimination of the sacrificial law and assume that it is only the sacrficial law that has been abolished.

Vic provided a text which rather clearly referred to the entirety of Torah:

Acts 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

The material in Hebrews treats the matter of the sacrificial law. But this does not mean that other elements of the Torah are not also retired.

In Mark 7, Jesus pronounces the end of the kosher food laws. If I applied your reasoning, I could say "Look, it is only the kosher laws that have been abolished."

I believe that the scriptures teach that the entirety of the written code of Torah has been abolished.

Let's go with your thinking for just a moment, and allow me to ask a question:

Do you believe Jesus Christ shed His blood for our sins, thus becoming our atonement, acting as our High Priest, and sitting on the right hand of God?

 

[Rick W]

Please direct replies concerning the Priesthood in the thread:
"Could ALL of Gods Laws REALLY Have been NAILED to HIS CROSS"
All previous replies addressing the priesthood here have been merged with the above thread.