How did Paul really feel about the Law?

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by wopik:
At the time of the end, God's people are still a commandment keeping people: Rev. 14:12 and Rev. 12:17 and Rev. 22:14.

I don't think anyone here is disputing that we, as believers, are to live in obedience to God. THat is not theissue. We are talking about Israel's Law, known as the Mosaic Covenant.

The fourth commandment - Sabbath commandment - is the only reason people want to do away with the laws of God. Non of the other commandments are controversial.

I don't think this is true at all. People don't like obedience at all. They like disobedience becuase of their very nature. But again, that has nothign to do with this discussion.

BTW, there is actually great controversy in virtually all of the 10 commandments.

Saying the 10 commandments are not binding on Christians is a legalistic ruse for not wanting to keep the LORD's holy Sabbath.

Again, not to point out the obvious, but we are not talking only about the 10 Commandments. Don't get off track here. We are talking about the Mosaic Law, which in addition to the 10, also contained more than 600 other commandments. Why are you insisting that we keep those other 600 as well???

 

[Charles Meadows]

Obviously we are not bound to keep the entire letter of the law - after all Jesus broke it multiple times. Jesus did however keep the spirit of the Law - and that has not changed since Sinai.

What is interesting is the concept that maybe the Jews did not look at the Law as a means of obtaining righteousness but rather as "their part" of the Covenant with God. This opinion is still NOT accepted by most scholars (especially in Reformed, Lutheran, or Catholic traditions) but is getting a larger following among both conservative and liberal protestants.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Obviously we are not bound to keep the entire letter of the law - after all Jesus broke it multiple times. Jesus did however keep the spirit of the Law - and that has not changed since Sinai.

What is interesting is the concept that maybe the Jews did not look at the Law as a means of obtaining righteousness but rather as "their part" of the Covenant with God. This opinion is still NOT accepted by most scholars (especially in Reformed, Lutheran, or Catholic traditions) but is getting a larger following among both conservative and liberal protestants.

Again, we are not bound to keep ANY of the mosaic law.

 

[wopik]

Obviously we are not bound to keep the entire letter of the law - after all Jesus broke it multiple times.

The Pharisees thought Jesus broke the Sabbath law because He healed on the Sabbath day. But there is nothing in Exodus 20 or Deut. 5 that says healing people is prohibited on the Sabbath day.
-------

There are "unclean" birds still being mentioned in Revelation 18:2, by John. If everyting in the NT era is now good to eat, John would not have mentioned any foul or birds as still being "unclean".

 

[wopik]

Why are you insisting that we keep those other 600 as well???

Pastor Larry ---

Then which Old Testament laws should we keep today? All of them. We keep–retain–every stroke of the pen of God's law, and we study that law to discern the meaning and intent of that law. We then carry out the spirit of the law in our daily lives.

We recognize that the law of Moses is a perfect expression of the will of God as it applied to those people in that time and in those circumstances. It would be the height of folly to treat that law with disdain or to ignore it, for it forms the foundation of the way of life Jesus enjoins on all of His servants.

Jesus Himself developed that law–moved it to a higher standard. He not only developed the spiritual concept of the Ten Commandments in the Sermon on the Mount, He restored original aspects of the law such as divorce and remarriage, and the observance of the Sabbath. He looked forward to the future and adjusted the Passover so that it might be properly kept when there was no temple. He reaffirmed tithing, but made it clear that meticulous tithing was not enough (Matthew 23:23).

Jesus' administration of the law in no way lowered the standards of human conduct. On the contrary, He raised those standards (Matthew 5:20-22, 27-28). At the same time, He introduced the element of mercy (John 8:3-11).

http://www.cemnetwork.com/essay/essay.php?eid=70 - link

 

[David Mark]

Originally posted by wopik:
Pastor Larry --
"You do well if you fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'

It is interesting also that all the law and the prophets hang on the two great commandments. And one Old Testament commandment that the Lord referrers to as: A new commandment (even though it is an old one). When I think about those two greatest commandments I imagine the rest of them as being linked somehow or even hanging on the two great commandments. I am glad I just have two to be fully consumed with. If I can do those two, I do the rest. If I honor my mother and father, then I love them. If I strive to love my neighbor, the brethren, and my enemies then the confusion that could exist over what the Sabbath law is about doesn't worry me at all, for I am preoccupied with a new and greater commandment.

It is interesting to think about how Gentiles probably know not of any of the Law of God. But when Gentiles hear of the Christ and The Cross they can be born again. How can this be? I mean, how can this be without pounding in how sinful Gentiles are first?

Dave.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by wopik:
Then which Old Testament laws should we keep today?

Those that are part of the creation and those who find their basis in the image of God. These laws are repeated for us in the NT.

All of them. We keep–retain–every stroke of the pen of God's law, and we study that law to discern the meaning and intent of that law. We then carry out the spirit of the law in our daily lives.

Scripture knows nothing of this.

We recognize that the law of Moses is a perfect expression of the will of God as it applied to those people in that time and in those circumstances.

This is true, key words being "those people in that time and in those circumstances." That excludes us.

It would be the height of folly to treat that law with disdain or to ignore it, for it forms the foundation of the way of life Jesus enjoins on all of His servants.

The height of folly would be to command what Scripture forbids. It is not the foundation of all of life. Life existed long before there was the Law and it has existed long since the Law was removed as a way of life. Not in one place will you find Jesus enjoining the Law onto anyone outside the nation of Israel.

Jesus didn't lower the demands of the Law. The Law is not applied to the NT believer. NT believers have a standard to live by. But it is not the Law of Moses.

 

[wopik]

Jesus' statement that the "Sabbath was made for MAN" (Mark 2:27-28), presents a glorious and far-reaching maxim for the permanent establishment of the Sabbath and of the true FREEDOM of its observance.

Jesus further explains that HE is Lord even of the Sabbath day, not surely to abolish it -- that truly were a strange lordship, especially just after saying it was made and instituted for MAN -- but to own it, to interpret it, to preside over it and to ennoble it.

Jesus breathed a new air of liberty and love into the Day, giving the Sabbath new life and freedom in His Gospel.

In light of Jesus’ statement, it will be hard to show that the apostle Paul meant the Sabbath day to vanquish away, in regards to the New Testament Church. Even more so if the Sabbath day was more ancient than Judaism and if the Lawgiver Himself said of it when on earth, “The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath Day”.

 

[Tim]

Wopik,

We now live in the Sabbath "Day" because Christ is Lord of it. He fulfilled the OT Law forever.

In Christ,

Tim

 

[Servent]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
The only law I know of and follow is the New Covenant enacted by Christ. When he established this new covenant and thus a new law, he did away with the old.

The Old Covenant was for a nation of saved and unsaved people.

The New Covenant is strictly for saved people.

The 10 Commandments are part of the Old Covenant. Christ himself did away with them.

Matt. 5:17 " Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" Jesus did not do away with the law, here he is refering to all the law, which includs the Ten Comandments.

 

[Me2]

We now live in the Sabbath "Day" because Christ is Lord of it. He fulfilled the OT Law forever.

thank you Tim....

when we are born again.we step into eternity.

one day lasting forever.

Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Do you regard one day a week, as the sabbath. or everyday?

Rom 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth [it] unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard [it]. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

whether we realize this or not. we've stepped into the lords day and by faith we do celebrate it everyday..the everlasting sabbath

just like the commandment invites us to

Me2

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aaron:
I have used this example multiple times without an adequate response.

When Paul wrote about the right of ministers to receive compensation for their work, he appealed to the Law of Moses. Don't muzzle the ox that treads the corn. Both times he used this he was writing to Gentile congregations.

If the OT was "done away" as many here assert, then the Paul's appeal is meaningless.

Yes Aaron, the principle behind that is that those who do the work need to be taken care of that they may continue doing the work.

The Old Covenant is NOT BINDING upon any New Covenant believer. Similarity doesn't dictate that the two are identical. </font>[/QUOTE]So Paul appealed to a defunct OT commandment as a mere illustration to Gentile believers?

Please.

The spiritual applications of the Law are just as binding on every NT believer as anything written in the Gospel. In fact Paul quotes it alongside Christ's words giving them equal authority in 1 Tim. 5:18 (Matt. 10:10).

 

[Tim]

To put it simply, Christ's relationship to the OT Law:

Destroy it? No

Fulfill it? Yes

Thus our obligation to the OT Law ended when Christ fulfilled it. It really is that simple.

In Christ,

Tim

 

[Daniel David]

Aaron, the law doesn't say anything about paying an elder. Paul was using the command during the O.T. as proof that you need to take care of those who do the work.

Show me in the O.T. where it says to pay an elder and I will concede the point.

 

[Aaron]

You've already conceded saying, "Paul was using the command during the O.T. as proof that you need to take care of those who do the work."

 

[Daniel David]

Aaron, many principles transcend time. That doesn't mean they are binding in the same way.

We are obliged to obey NONE of the Mosaic law. I am required to obey Christ's law, which is not the identical thing.

 

[wopik]

Romans 14 is a chapter dealing with new members and/or those weak in the Faith. Nothing in these outlines would indicate that the doctrines of Sabbath, diet or the Law.

Many Bible resources agree that the book of 1 Corinthians was written about 55, although Romans was probably written from Corinth in 56 or 57. The food controversy in Corinth was over meat sacrificed to idols. Since Paul was writing to the Romans from Corinth, where this had been a significant issue, this subject was fresh on Paul's mind and is the logical, biblically supported basis for Romans 14.

What is the point of Paul's instruction in Romans 14? Depending upon their consciences, early believers had several choices they could make while traveling or living in their communities. If they did not want to eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols, they could choose to fast or eat only vegetables to make sure they did not consume any meat of suspicious background that might offend their conscience. If their consciences were not bothered by eating meat sacrificed to idols, they could choose any of the options. Within this context, Paul said, "Let each be fully convinced in his own mind" (verse 5) because "whatever is not from faith is sin" (verse 23).

Romans 14 is, in part, a chapter on Christian liberty-acting according to one's conscience within the framework of God's laws as they pertained to meat sacrificed to idols. Understood in its context, Romans 14 is not a permit to eat pork or any other unclean meat.

When one understands that the historical food controversy of the New Testament dealt with meat sacrificed to idols and not which meats were clean, other scriptures become clear.