WAS THE LAW FULFILLED OR ABOLISHED?

[Drew]

What is your point? You cannot arbitrarily decide that other are not allowed to use analogies to make a point - analogies are one of the most powerful tools we use in trying to explain things to others. I think the analogy was clear and relevant. What is your specific objection to the use of analogies?

 

[GodsGrace]

If you are asking me whether should consult the 10 commandments in order to regulate our behavior, the answer is 'no`. I thought I have been clear about this, but the foregoing will hopefully make my stance clear.


But what do you actually mean when you say that He would put the Law in our hearts? How does your view differ from effectively "memorizing" the law - having an 'internal copy' that you would consult to order your behavior? I have explained (recent post) my interpretation of what it means for the Law to be written on the heart of the believer.

I just started a new thread in Theological Discussions about the O.T. law.

My answer to your first paragraph would be YES.

God will put the law in our hearts...means the law is not abolished....but moved into the heart.
I don't need to consult any list in order to follow Jesus' Two Great Commandments.

Also, I've been asking you the difference between the Mosaic and the New Covenants.
I'll tell you what the difference is.

In the Mosaic Covenant Moses came down from Mt. Sinai with 10 commandments.
The Israelites said they would keep them, but they could not.

In the New Covenant we are able to keep them. (not totally, we still sin).

Why?

We are indwelt by the Holy Spirit...
The O.T. persons were not and they did not have the POWER to obey the commandments.
And trying to follow them on their own was not possible because man is born with a sin nature and it's pretty strong unless God suppresses it.

I'm curious to see what others believe...
This thread was meant to understand the difference between ABOLISH and FULFILL...
seems like we've moved on.

 

[GodsGrace]

What is your point? You cannot arbitrarily decide that other are not allowed to use analogies to make a point - analogies are one of the most powerful tools we use in trying to explain things to others. I think the analogy was clear and relevant. What is your specific objection to the use of analogies?

No Drew.
It wasn't meant for the analogies...I use them too at times. But rarely.
It was because of the misunderstanding about the Law of Moses.
Check out the other thread....

 

[Drew]

Let's take a different route.....

Please explain to me the difference between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant.

The Mosaic Covenant was a covenant between God and Israel. Its goal: that Israel would be the means by which the nations would be blessed. For reasons that are too long to get into in this post, that covenant ended at the cross. Now we have a new covenant mediated by Jesus. I would have to take more time than I have to try to explain what that covenant consists in, but I am convinced this is not necessary for our purposes. The key point for our present purposes is that the Law of Moses - the key element of the Mosaic covenant - was given to Israel and Israel alone. And now the Mosaic covenant has achieved its goal, the Law of Moses is now obsolete and can be set aside.

 

[Drew]

Please show some verses that state that we are not longer bound by the Moral Law..

You are not going to like my answer, but here is one:

But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

A clear, unambiguous statement that Jews (the only ones ever subject to the Law of Moses) are no longer "under it".

I humbly humbly suggest you are effectively adding an unstated qualifier, at the very end like this:

But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor, except the moral parts.

Do you see my point?

 

[Drew]

IOW,,,what do you think it means to not be under the law but under grace?

It simply means that the Jew - the only one ever under the law in first place - is no longer under it. Period. Including the moral parts. As I have been claiming all along.

Again, it is bad logic to say that just because I believe that murder is wrong, this means I am following the 10 commandments - I can legitimately claiming I am following the teachings of Christ, or Paul, or the leading of the Spirit.

 

[Drew]

In the Mosaic Covenant Moses came down from Mt. Sinai with 10 commandments.
The Israelites said they would keep them, but they could not.

In the New Covenant we are able to keep them. (not totally, we still sin).

Unsurprisingly, we disagree about the status of the Law of Moses under the New Covenant.

 

[GodsGrace]

The Mosaic Covenant was a covenant between God and Israel. Its goal: that Israel would be the means by which the nations would be blessed. For reasons that are too long to get into in this post, that covenant ended at the cross. Now we have a new covenant mediated by Jesus. I would have to take more time than I have to try to explain what that covenant consists in, but I am convinced this is not necessary for our purposes. The key point for our present purposes is that the Law of Moses - the key element of the Mosaic covenant - was given to Israel and Israel alone. And now the Mosaic covenant has achieved its goal, the Law of Moses is now obsolete and can be set aside.

But didn't you read and learn that no covenant makes the previous one obsolete?

THIS is what you were supposed to find out.

IOW,,,HOW did the New Covenant change the Mosaic Covenant?
Or do you believe it did not change it nor make it better?
IOW...you believe the Mosaic Covenant was made null and void?

 

[GodsGrace]

It simply means that the Jew - the only one ever under the law in first place - is no longer under it. Period. Including the moral parts. As I have been claiming all along.

Again, it is bad logic to say that just because I believe that murder is wrong, this means I am following the 10 commandments - I can legitimately claiming I am following the teachings of Christ, or Paul, or the leading of the Spirit.

OK...I got this Drew.
Just answer my last post re the two covenants....
And I think that'll be it.

 

[LovethroughDove]

I'm just wondering if Jesus fulfills the law........he becomes the period and they end of the law........and then life through the Spirit begins. So, we don't look to the law because we know righteousness doesn't come from the law, but through the Spirit.

Galatians 2:21 "I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

Goes back to Jesus saying unless your righteousness surpasses the teachers of law.

 

[Drew]

But didn't you read and learn that no covenant makes the previous one obsolete?

THIS is what you were supposed to find out.

IOW,,,HOW did the New Covenant change the Mosaic Covenant?
Or do you believe it did not change it nor make it better?
IOW...you believe the Mosaic Covenant was made null and void?

I see no point in discussing this matter further. No hard feelings. I may participate in the other thread, however.

 

[GodsGrace]

I see no point in discussing this matter further. No hard feelings. I may participate in the other thread, however.

I was just shutting down Drew.
I feel the same.
We both wish to serve God so I don't really see a problem.
It's the understandings we have.
'night.
See you on the other thread.

 

[JLB]

Be my guest.

Show me how one covenant (pick any)
makes the previous one obsolete.

And if you're going to use Hebrews 8 you will have to show me HOW
the Mosaic Covenant became obsolete.

Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. Romans 7:1-4



Key Verse —


Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ...





JLB

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

18 “Which ones?” he inquired.

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”

And added to that abstain from sexual immorality.

If one loves as Jesus loves those commandments are fulfilled.

Paul saw all the law as law and considered the law in judgments he made such as ,For Scripture says, "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages."

Paul rebuked wickedness and upheld the commandments Jesus emphasized. He also knew that righteousness in Christ was credited to us by faith and aware of the new covenant. As he noted the freedom in Christ from the ceremony laws.

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.

And Paul noted the importance was in faith expressing itself through love not in works of the law such as circumcision.

They were not made clean by works but by faith in Jesus.

When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, "Son, your sins are forgiven."
Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."

As for many in Israel it was written:
Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.

So I agree with you in part we use the NT as a guide as to which commandments Jesus is enforcing. We have freedom in Christ but we are not free to continue to sin.

Yes, they were not made clean by works of the OT law that required strict, flawless law keeping to be justified.

On another occasion Jesus said in Matthew 9:14-17.

Jesus' point here is that NT Christianity was not to be just a patch put on OT Judaism but was to completely replace OT Judaism, a whole new garment, a whole new, different religion altogether and not just a new addition to the OT.

Verse 17 new is not to be mixed with the old, here the NT cannot be mixed with the OT. There were issues growing between John's disciples and Christ's disciples. On this occasion John's disciples fasted while Christ's disciples did not. Jesus would not 'pour' His new teachings into old wineskins (John's disciples) but gave His new teachings to His own disciples. Jesus new teachings would not fit the old ideas of the Pharisees and John's disciples .

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes, they were not made clean by works of the OT law that required strict, flawless law keeping to be justified.

On another occasion Jesus said in Matthew 9:14-17.

Jesus' point here is that NT Christianity was not to be just a patch put on OT Judaism but was to completely replace OT Judaism, a whole new garment, a whole new, different religion altogether and not just a new addition to the OT.

Verse 17 new is not to be mixed with the old, here the NT cannot be mixed with the OT. There were issues growing between John's disciples and Christ's disciples. On this occasion John's disciples fasted while Christ's disciples did not. Jesus would not 'pour' His new teachings into old wineskins (John's disciples) but gave His new teachings to His own disciples. Jesus new teachings would not fit the old ideas of the Pharisees and John's disciples .

Where is it stated that the O.T. law had to be kept perfectly?
I can't think of any verse.

 

[GodsGrace]

Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. Romans 7:1-4



Key Verse —


Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ...





JLB

Drew and I discussed the above on this thread.
We still are to bear fruit to God. (as in Romans 7:1-4)

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Where is it stated that the O.T. law had to be kept perfectly?
I can't think of any verse.

For one to be righteous, just before God under the OT required one to keep all the law flawlessly, perfectly which none could do but Christ.

Under the OT law they did not have the blood of Christ that can take away all sin, all they had was the blood of bulls and goats that could not take away sin Hebrews 10:1-4. If the OT could make one perfect. No need to put an end to those OT animal sacrifices if they could make one perfect nor no need for Christ to die if the OT law could make one perfect.

Hebrews 7:11 no need for another Priesthood (Christ) if the OT priesthood could make one perfect.

Hebrews 11:19 the law made nothing perfect. Albert Barnes aptly describes it " That Law, as such, did not reconcile man to God; it did not make an atonement: it did not put away guilt; in one word, “it did not restore things to the condition in which they were before the Law was broken and man became a sinner."

Galatians 3:21 "... or if there had been a law given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been of the law." All the OT law could do is condemn and not make one perfect because, again, none could keep it perfectly. If those Jews could have kept the OT law perfectly then "righteousness would have been of the law" and not "through faith in Christ" (Philippians 3:9). Therefore if righteousness (perfect law keeping) were by the law then Christ died in vain Galatians 2:21.

Galatians 3:11 " Now that no man is justified by the law before God..." Why? For they could not keep the OT law perfectly.

Galatians 3:12 " and the law is not of faith; but, He that doeth them shall live in them."
"The law is not of faith" seems strange after reading about the faith of those great OT characters in Hebrews 11. The OT law did not require faith to be justified for all it required is keeping it perfectly to be just before God for one who could keep the law perfectly would have no sin and could stand by God perfect. So all that matter under the OT law was doing it. Again Albert Barnes aptly puts it (my emp) "It (OT) does not make provision for faith, but it requires unwavering and perpetual obedience, if man would obtain life by it;"

 

[GodsGrace]

For one to be righteous, just before God under the OT required one to keep all the law flawlessly, perfectly which none could do but Christ.

Under the OT law they did not have the blood of Christ that can take away all sin, all they had was the blood of bulls and goats that could not take away sin Hebrews 10:1-4. If the OT could make one perfect. No need to put an end to those OT animal sacrifices if they could make one perfect nor no need for Christ to die if the OT law could make one perfect.

Hebrews 7:11 no need for another Priesthood (Christ) if the OT priesthood could make one perfect.

Hebrews 11:19 the law made nothing perfect. Albert Barnes aptly describes it " That Law, as such, did not reconcile man to God; it did not make an atonement: it did not put away guilt; in one word, “it did not restore things to the condition in which they were before the Law was broken and man became a sinner."

Galatians 3:21 "... or if there had been a law given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been of the law." All the OT law could do is condemn and not make one perfect because, again, none could keep it perfectly. If those Jews could have kept the OT law perfectly then "righteousness would have been of the law" and not "through faith in Christ" (Philippians 3:9). Therefore if righteousness (perfect law keeping) were by the law then Christ died in vain Galatians 2:21.

Galatians 3:11 " Now that no man is justified by the law before God..." Why? For they could not keep the OT law perfectly.

Galatians 3:12 " and the law is not of faith; but, He that doeth them shall live in them."
"The law is not of faith" seems strange after reading about the faith of those great OT characters in Hebrews 11. The OT law did not require faith to be justified for all it required is keeping it perfectly to be just before God for one who could keep the law perfectly would have no sin and could stand by God perfect. So all that matter under the OT law was doing it. Again Albert Barnes aptly puts it (my emp) "It (OT) does not make provision for faith, but it requires unwavering and perpetual obedience, if man would obtain life by it;"

All this is very confusing to me.
There is one verse in the N.T. that I can think of that states that if you've broken one law ,,,, you've broken them all....but it means we could not keep the law.

You did mention Hebrews 11.
What saved persons in the O.T. is the same as what saved them in the N.T.
Noah was a righteous man...right with God.
Abraham had faith....Galatians 3:7 .....
Faith in God has always saved man.

As to Galatians 3:12...don't you believe this is salvation by our works ONLY and not by faith?
If someone had faith AND tried to keep the law because that is what he was taught by his Rabbi...then surely he was saved.

 

[JLB]

Drew and I discussed the above on this thread.
We still are to bear fruit to God. (as in Romans 7:1-4)

Jews who are in Christ are dead to the law.

Gentiles who live outside of the land of promise, were never under the law.



JLB

 

[GodsGrace]

Jews who are in Christ are dead to the law.

Gentiles who live outside of the land of promise, were never under the law.



JLB

I agree.
My contention is that we are still under the Moral Law....which is the 10 commandments...which Jesus narrowed down to 2.

Obeying the commandments of Jesus does not equal being under the law.
It equals being good disciples of His.
He taught that we are to follow HIS rules and these incl the 10 commandments.

My contention is that God is a MORAL being and He cannot be divided from Himself.
God gave us the Natural Law before the Mr. Sinai experience.
This is because God is moral and expects us to be moral as He is....
Be perfect,,,as our heavenly father is perfect....