Old Testament Law

Okay, allow me to further explain some things.

AV1611Jim, you are wrong on this point. The Law is not binding on anyone in anyway. You are quoting Paul, who was a person who lived under the law. He lived during the time of Christ. Since he lived under the law, he knew he was a sinner, because he could read that he was a sinner.

In Romans 3:19, it says that everyone's mouth would be shut because of Israel's inability to obey the law. That is, they were the test case for the entire world. If God's people, with many, many blessings could not obey the law, then no one could.

When you read Galatians 4, like I previously mentioned, you see that the law was functioning UNTIL Christ came. Did Christ come? Yes. Does the law still function? No.

Blackbird, I will simply say that the law is not the standard for me to know whether or not I am sinning. It isn't the standard for you either.

Jesus said that when the Spirit came, the Spirit would convict the world of sin, righteousness, and justice. Can we believe Christ that the Spirit will do his job and doesn't need the help of an out of date law? I can.

Further, according to Paul's theology in Titus 2, grace leads us to righteousness, not license to sin. We now live by a higher righteousness than what the law could ever attain to.

 

Higher righteousness? What higher righteousness is there than that described by the Law?

 

The righteousness of Christ, of course!

 

No function at all? Not a standard? Of course not, but only in the context that you believe and love Him.

1 John 5:1 (KJV)
1Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
1 John 5:2 (KJV)
2By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1 John 5:3 (KJV)
3For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
1 John 5:4 (KJV)
4For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
1 John 5:5 (KJV)
5Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

How is it known that we believe and love God? And His commandments are not what?

 

Did Christ introduce any commandments for us? Yes. Does that text mean the Old Covenant? No.

 

Be more specific. What did Christ do that was not touched on in the Law? What does Christ command us that is any different than that which is commanded by the Law?

 

1) Yes, agree, Jesus was given a commandment by the father to speak to us and he knew that commandment was life everlasting, (John 12) about the other commandments he said He came not to destroy them but to fulfill them and not to teach men to brake them.

2) No, agree, new covenant and note commandments is plural.

 

Aaron, Christ did more than expound the Law in the Sermon on the Mount. He modified each point in some way.

Christ isn't Moses' best expositor. The Sermon on the Mount isn't really the Talmud of Christ.

No, even Moses looked forward to a prophet by whose words the very lives of men would be judged.

Benjamin, consider the "great commission". What did Christ say about commandments?

Further, Christ said he would fulfill the law. Did he do this? Did he fail? Is there still something left to fulfill?

 

Didn’t learn the Word of God under the influence of traditional teachings that all you have to do is believe and be saved. I understand it as God did not want His children to sin and gave His children laws to live by and a promise of heaven if obeyed, but everybody did sin so God loving us SO much sent his Son to suffer and die to pay the price for His children’s sins, so we could go to heaven and “ALL” we had to do is believe that He gave this GIFT. Don’t see it as God changing His mind as to how we are to live our lives.

Can’t find anywhere in scripture that as a child of God we no longer have any duty to try to obey His commandments. Always thought a child that thought like that was a spoiled brat. Thought about the whooping that spoiled brat might get by his Father once he got home.

If we seek the Father through the Son He gives us LIFE “and “good GIFTS to bear fruit. Seeking Him through the Holy Spirit we see clearly where these GIFTS of fruit come (not from works) of the law, but from LOVING that which is Holy (God’s WORDS) We shouldn’t give those WORDS unto the dogs, or cast our pearls before swine because they don’t understand LIFE is a free GIFT “and” His WORDS (the pearls) are HOLY and bring forth fruit.. If we take the splinter out of others eyes it is done by that which is Holy (God’s words including commandments) but only after we realize that LIFE is a free gift otherwise we have a bigger log in our eyes. The bigger log would be the new commandment.

We shall be known by our fruits in RESPECT of God’s WORDS. A sheep in wolves clothing would be someone teaching that you do NOT NEED TBEY HIS WORDS which do not “change” because of this FREE GIFT. A good tree received knowledge through the Spirit and obeys God’s words bringing forth good fruit. A corrupt tree says they received the FREE GIFT, but the fruit has thorns (the thorns come from knowledge by the world) they did not hear through the Spirit or believe they had to grow from GOD’S WORDS of RIGHTEOUSNESS. The wolves say, ‘in thy name we have done wonderful works” Jesus didn’t come doing His will, but the Fathers; including “ALL” God’s commandments. That’s why I would think Jesus said He was fulfilling the law not destroying it. Well, we know what Jesus said next to those that work iniquity.

The bible warns about the deceiver that spoils and doesn’t want us to bear fruit. Seems to me Jesus told us of an additional commandment with a new promise of grace. Find it hard to believe that God’s other words were in vain.

 

Edit: Meant to say a wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

Actually, I'm not saying that. Paul is. How do you define sin?

 

DD, Christ did not modify the Law. He fulfilled it. You err in thinking that Christ was responding to Moses in Matt. 5:21-48. "Them of old time" is not in reference to Moses. The use of the plural pronoun eliminates him altogether. Neither is Christ referring to the Scriptures. In any other place when Christ referred to Moses, or the Law, or the Scriptures, He always said "Moses", or "the Law", or "the Scriptures".

THEM of old time is in reference to the rabbis of old time, or rabbinical tradition. "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy." Which law was Christ quoting here? You look in vain to find this anywhere in the Law or the Prophets. It isn't there. This was rabbinical tradition.

Don't be confused by the seeming direct quotes from the Law. That's how rabbis performed their torah (little T).

There is nothing in what Christ commanded in Matt. 5 that had not been expressed already in some form in the Scriptures of the Old Testament.

To say that Christ brought a "higher" righteousness than that commanded by the Law betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the Law. Do you honestly believe that one could be abiding by the commandment that prohibited murder if he bore ill will toward another in his heart? That a man could be in good standing while wishing for the death of his enemies as long as he didn't physically draw blood? Then you know neither the Law nor the Prophets.

Thinking Christ brought a "higher" righteousness is also to pit the Son against the Father. "My Father said...but I say unto you...." And we know that Christ did nothing that He did not see His Father do, John 5:19.

And the righteousness that is fulfilled in us who, in this Gospel age, walk after the Spirit is not a "higher" righteousness than that of the Law. It is THE righteousness of the Law, Romans 8:4.

 

Now THIS is interesting coming from you. You in your premillennialism believe there are certain OT prophecies yet to fulfill, though Christ said no less emphatically that He came to fulfill the prophets.

 

Did anyone consider what people did before the Law was given?

They knew right from wrong.

Cain knew murdering Abel was wrong, so he lied about it.

Joseph knew adultery was a sin against God and refused to sleep with Potipher's wife.

We all know that the ceremonial law was fulfilled and abolished by Christ.

Most of us know from reading the Old Testament that the civil law only applied to the Israelites.

Christ's Law {1 Cor. 9:21} is the moral law.

The cancellation of the written code does not negate morality simply because the cancelled written code contained moral guidelines.

Those who would put us under the O.T Law should read it.

Those who insist on keeping it find themselves picking and choosing which laws they want to keep.

I sincerely challenge those who want to keep the law to READ IT.

Note that God says REPEATEDLY that the law was given to His people WHO ARE IN ISRAEL.

Don't argue about something you haven't read.

MR

 

Ah, here's what I was looking for.

Galatians 4:21. Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?

MR

 

Aaron, have you studied New Covenant Theology at all?

 

Funny, I myself was wondering if you'd even read the NT.

I take it that you have no response.

 

Not sure how the people before the law knew morals….different relationship….but everyone through out has been given (civil laws) to obey.

Point being made Israel was given (civil laws) in the form of commandments and statutes and judgments. God said the “commandments” would not be added to or taken away from; ever know God to NOT uphold a commandment or keep His word that it will not change? Can a Jew be saved? Trying to understand that one. Thinking the statutes and judgments were fulfilled. But what about the commandments?

We where told to OBEY the (civil laws) given by the “higher power” and to pay tribute to whom tribute is due. (Romans 13)

Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying, or for that matter NEVER said, we are under the law, I’m only trying to make the point that to describe the law as having no function, not a standard, or in force in any way is NOT the right way to put it. We should REJOICE in the relationship with Him (the higher power) and produce good fruits through love and guidance of the Holy Spirit by the scripture that was given us, including the law. We should NOT REJOICE in the power of iniquity! His words where not given in vain.

2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Timothy 3:17 (KJV)
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Ceremonial law was fulfilled, of course

On picking and choosing from God’s commandments we have an example to follow in the breakup of commandments and statutes and judgments in Deu 4:1-3 and we ask and seek guidance from the Holy Spirit to produce good fruits. Yes, I’ve read the laws and there is a lot of wisdom there for “OUR” good! Have you ever read the parable, Luke 13:6-9? The tree after being nurtured that didn’t produce fruit would be chopped down.

Gal 4:21 is referring to the little children 4:19 that didn’t understand that they were to do good through the promise; that is the subject.

1 Cor 9:21 is referring to the gentiles, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) which makes my point that the law DID expanded its influence to gentiles. Thanks.

Hope that better explains my position.

 

Aaron, don't be ridiculous. Your covenant theology cannot handle truth.

John compares what Moses gave to a better administration (law versus grace and truth).

Paul says we are NOT under law, but grace. Again, different administration.

Paul says that the law was a schoolmaster until Christ came. Well, Christ came buddy.

Paul called the Galatians foolish for thinking that justification was by faith, but sanctification by the law. In modern language, Oh foolish Covenant theologians...

I will have to post more on the sermon on the mount. In each example, Christ changed something.

Also, please explain your view of Christ giving a NEW commandment, that to love as Christ has loved them. Wouldn't that be 'higher' than the law?

 

We aren't talking about whether or not The NT is a better covenant than the Old. It is better. The OT was the Promise of things to come, and the NT is the fulfillment of that Promise. We're talking about whether Christ preached a "higher" righteousness than that demanded by the Law. Christ, Paul and I say no, you say yes.

Again, the issue is whether or not Christ's righteousness is "higher" than that demanded by the Law. No one was ever justified by the deeds of the law. A man's justification has always been by grace through faith, which is pretty much the whole point of the book of Romans. The Law was added not as a means of justification, but to teach men their need for Christ.

Well, pal, let's see what Paul said exactly. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. The purpose of the Law is like that of a mirror. A man to whom faith is imparted will, even today, look into it and see himself in contrast to the righteousness of God [which in your fallacious view is a lesser righteousness than that of Christ ], will see the end of those who do not live up to its standards and will cry out, O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? He will then thank God, through Jesus Christ his Lord, that there is no more condemnation to them who believe in Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus set him free from the law of sin and death. 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: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Now, the Law did not profit the faithless Jews. They did not, nor do they now, comprehend the Law. They could not see its true scope and end and set about to establish their own righteousness. In their blindness they perverted the Law through their traditions. You are like them if you think that at any time, even before Christ, a man was justified by the works of the Law.

What Christ did in the Sermon on the Mount was sweep away the perversions of rabbinical tradition, and establish the true scope and end of the the Law.

Well, you've just demonstrated your ignorance of Covenant Theology. Justification was always by faith. That's the tenant of CT that you deny.

No, it would be the fulfilling of the Law. It is not new in the sense that it is opposed to the Law, Matt. 7:12, 22:36-40; Rom. 13:9-10; 1 John 2:6-11. It is new in the sense that it is the fulfillment of the Law. Who can love in the manner demanded by the law except by the power of the Spirit? Therefore, the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in those who in new life walk after the Spirit.

It is also new in the sense that love was not the central theme in rabbinical tradition.