Old Testament Law

Aaron, I will quickly say that I just preached last sunday on justification. I made it clear that salvation has always been by faith. We both agree that people were not saved differently in other times.

I don't have time, but will address the issues you raise. It is obvious though that your own study is weak, as you believe Christ merely gave the best interpretation of the law.

 

Aaron, what significance do you put on Hebrews 3 regarding the comparison between Moses and Christ? This will reveal your knowledge on the subject.

 

Is it okay to keep ALL 400 laws and to observe them today? Is it okay to continue make offerings and sacrifices of animals today?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

What's obvious is that you do not possess good reading comprehension skills. You cannot come to the conclusion that you did about my belief from the things I've written. "Best interpretation"? Puh-leeze! Christ is the embodiment of the Law. He didn't merely comment on it.

Heb. 3 has no bearing on our discussion at all.

One more time. You and I aren't discussing the superiority of Christ over Moses, or the NT over the OT. You and I are discussing whether or not the righteousness commanded by the Law is a lesser righteousness than that commanded by the Gospel. To date you have yet to describe how the righteousness of the Gospel is higher than the righteousness of the Law. All you've done is make vague references. I, on the other hand, haven't ceased to supply verse after verse of eminently relevant Scripture. And I'm the one with the weak arguments?

You keep promising to deal with the points I've made, and I keep waiting.

 

"Still waiting," he said, drumming the desktop with fingers of his right hand.

 

Aaron, Hebrews 3 is a key text in this discussion. You have yet to demonstrate that the righteousness of the law is the same as the righteousness of God.

We are not saved by vicarious law-keeping by Christ. We are saved by a superior righteousness, that of God himself.

Anyway, you blew off the fact that Christ introduced a NEW commandment. A person can under the old covenant faithfully follow the ten commandments and still split hell open.

As for Hebrews 3, you wish to ignore it because of your loyalty to Covenant Theology. I prefer loyalty to truth, but to each his own.

What is the significance of the comparison between Christ and Moses? Hmmmm. Oh, they are both prophets. Prophets are known for their message. In Deut. 18, Moses told the Jews that a GREATER prophet would come AND that they would be judged by HIS WORDS. If Christ was just repeating the law, that wouldn't make sense. Think man. Anyway, since a prophet is known by his message, and since Moses foretold of one to come with a greater message, I can agree with Scripture by saying that the words and LAW of Christ are SUPERIOR to the law of moses.

Righteousness by the law is inferior to the righteousness that comes by faith in Christ.

Better watch those gopher balls, I just sent that one into the next city.

 

Oh, Aaron...

 

The significance of the comparison of Christ to Moses is to show that Christ is a better mediator of a better covenant than Moses.

How was Christ superior?

First, because he is the Heir. Moses was merely a servant. Second, because Christ is the Author of the Law. Moses was merely the mouthpiece. Third, Christ's priesthood is superior to the Levitical priesthood by virtue of His endless life. The Levitical priesthood was ordained after a "carnal commandment." The Levites ministered in types and shadows of the things to come, Christ ministers in the reality of those things.

The New Testament is superior to the Old Testament. The Old Testament was temporal, the New Testament eternal. The Old brought death and a curse, the New brings life and blessing. The Old Testament could not take away sins. In it is only the remembrance of sin. The comer to the New Testament is made perfect, and his heart is sprinkled from an evil conscience, not with the blood of bulls and goats which never could take away sins, but with the blood of Christ.

The righteousness of the law is summed up in two commandments, love God with all your being, and love your neighbor as yourself. Now tell me, how does the righteousness of Christ surpass the righteous requirements of the law? Did He somehow love God more than with all his being? He must have if your assertions are correct. Then the commandment to love God with all your being falls short of God's glory, and is therefore sin.

See how absolutely absurd your way of thinking is?

Tell me. Exactly how does Christ's righteousness surpass the law's demand to love God with all one's being?

If the law requires that we love God with all our being and our neighbor as ourselves, it is easy to see how the commandment, Thou shalt not kill, forbids ill will toward even our enemies. It is equally easy to see that the commandment, Thou shalt not commit adultery, forbids even impure thoughts and desires. Nay, more. It is fulfilled in the commandment, Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church. Retaliation for personal affronts was never provided for in the law. The law commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves. Love requires that we go the extra mile, that when our coat is demanded we give our cloak, too. It should now be easy to see that Christ was not at all "modifying" the law in Matt. 5, but teaching it's true aim and scope which had been lost in darkness and rabbinical tradition. It only seems like a new commandment because our understanding has been enlightened, and that's what Christ meant. As John the Beloved said:

He should know. He was there. And I didn't blow it off, I dealt with it in the same manner on the previous page.

There is no righteousness higher than the righteousness demanded by the law, requiring, as it does, divine love to fulfill it.

Christ surpasses Moses. There's no question, and, for the last time, that's not the issue. Moses did not keep the law. Though he may have been the meekest man to ever live (beside Christ), the righteous requirements of the law were clearly beyond his grasp.

They were not beyond Christ's grasp, though, and that makes Christ a better mediator than Moses. It does not follow that the righteousness Moses preached was any less than that demanded by Christ, just as the fact that Christ is a better pastor than James does not necessitate the fact that the righteousness you preach be any less than the righteousness of Christ.

It does not follow. All your reasoning to this point has been one big non sequitur.

So put your insistance that a better covenant demands a higher righteousness to rest. It is an unscriptural sentiment and a logical fallacy. Think man. That is why I did not wish to delve into this. It's all beside the point.

Why do you wish to avoid being specific about how Christ's righteousness is higher than that of the law? It's because you really don't know what you're talking about.

It doesn't make sense to the Amazonian savage that the earth goes round the sun. It's true nontheless.

But who said Christ was "just repeating" the law? He was expounding upon it. Not modifying it. He was holding it up for us to see it more from His point of view. When you preach, is it accurate to say you're "just repeating" the Gospel? Some with false humility might say so, but that's not what they're doing. All that would be required then is a good reader. Yet none would say that he is modifying the Gospel.

You say this because you do not know the law. How then can you understand the New Testament? Anyone who thinks he can "faithfully" follow the Ten Commandments understands neither what he reads nor whereof he affirms.

 

Next city, eh?

Psst! Your next line is, "Christ loved God with more than all His being, by _____________(fill in the blank)."

I must admit, it's a tough one to answer, but, hey! you're the informed one loyal to truth and all.

 

Aaron, it is your loyalty to covenant theology that has blinded you to the obvious.

Christ introduced a NEW law. If the old law was inferior to the new law, then the righteousness by the law is inferior to the righteousness of the new.

Consider your own example. Christ said that the law and prophets hung on two commands:

1. Love God will all your being
2. Love your neighbor as yourself

Now, please inform me and everyone else how Jesus came to that conclusion. There is nothing in any command text in any of the law that sets one above another. THEY ARE ALL EQUAL IN THAT A VIOLATION OF ONE POINT, VIOLATES THE WHOLE.

Jesus took it upon himself to introduce a new law. While doing that, he elevated some known laws, eliminated others, and introduced some whole new ones (love, baptism, etc).

Consider Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets

You see that? Paul says the righteousness of God was revealed APART FROM THE LAW. In fact, the law and prophets only WITNESSED IT.

Sorry Aaron, pitch in the minors for awhile. Work on your mechanics. Come back with substance.

 

As John the Divine and I have already answered this, the point is moot.

First, no one is made righteous by the law. It is weak through the flesh. To command a fallen man to love God and his neighbor would be no more efficacious than to command him to sprout wings and fly. It simply isn't his nature. The carnal mind is not subject to the law of God.

If by the phrase "by the law" you really meant "of the law" then you're simply asserting another non sequitur. Your task is to show how the righteousness of Christ is greater than the righteousness commanded by the law.

He came to that conclusion in the same way the scribe did who asked Him, which is the great, first, or principal, commandment, Matt. 22:36-40, Mark 12:28-34.

It's self-evident.

Not only that, it could have been one of the multitude of verses in the OT that actually say it straight out: Deut. 10:12; Micah 6:8; and such like.

And just what was Ahimelech up to when he gave David and his band of soldiers shewbread that was not lawful for them? Matt. 12:3-8. He learned that God desires mercy, not sacrifice.

Wouldn't it be rather presumptuous of Christ to upbraid the scribes and Pharisees for not giving first priority to the "weightier" matters of the law if there were none? Matt. 23:23

No. The ceremonial aspects of the law, the carnal commandments (Heb. 7;16) were never, ever considered equal to the weight of its righteous requirements, as I've shown you above. James was speaking of the Ten Commandments when he said violating one point was violating the whole, and that's always been the case. How can one say he loves his neighbor if he's stealing from him? And how he say he loves God Who commanded him to love his neighbor in the first place?

Beside the point. BTW, love isn't new. Am I going to have to take you by the hand and show you the commandments to love God and your neighbor?

The advent of the New Covenant necessitated a change in the law, otherwise Christ could not have been our High Priest. What changed were the carnal commandments not the spiritual ones pertaining to righteousness, Rom. 7:14.

This is the very reason that novices aren't to be ordained. Paul is not speaking here of a higher righteousness than that of the law. He is speaking of how a man is MADE righteous. The righteousness of God, which is testified of in the law and prophets, is imparted to a man by faith, not by works. The righteousness which is fulfilled in a man thus justified, is the righteousness of the law, Rom. 8:4.

Of course, I've already told you this

Now, let me remind you what we're talking about. We aren't talking about the superiority of Christ over Moses, or the New Testament over the Old. Neither are we speaking of justification.

You said, and I quote, "We now live by a higher righteousness than what the law could ever attain to."

You have yet to describe how the righteousness commanded by the NT is higher than the righteousness commanded by the law.

I asked, "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?"

You alluded to Matt. 5 saying Christ modified each tenet. I showed you in two posts how that is not true. You made no attempt to expose any weaknesses or errors in either of them. You merely resorted to labels and your trademark vitriol.

You then reasoned, fallaciously, that since the NT is superior to the OT, that if followed the righteousness is superior. This failed on two accounts. 1) It didn't answer the question, and 2) The superiority of the NT does not necessitate a higher righteousness than that commanded by the Old.

You then tried to say that Christ's "new" commandment was something unheard of before, but I and St. John told you that it wasn't unheard of.

In every post you have avoided the question. And the reason is easy to see. You don't have an answer. You cannot show us how Christ lived by a higher righteousness than that commanded by the law, because He didn't.

 

Aaron, I don't know where the breakdown is. Perhaps it is in my explanation. You are force feeding the NT back into the OT.

Let me start with Matthew 5.

1. The law said not to commit adultery. The law NEVER prohibited lust. It didn't govern the heart. It NEVER could. Jesus took the command not to commit adultery to a new level.

THEREFORE, one could be righteous by the law and still be a reprobate.

2. The law said to only divorce for the issue of uncleanness (if one chose to). Jesus eliminated that and forbid divorce for any reason (except for continued adultery). Further, Jesus forbid remarriage (unless the prior spouse is dead).

THEREFORE, one could be righteous by the law and still have a hard heart (Matt. 19).

3. The issue of swearing or promising was one way in the law. One was to not enter them lightly. However, Christ just said to always tell the truth. Don't swear about anything.

THEREFORE, one could be righteous by the law and still be deceptive in his swearing.

4. On retaliation, the law allowed for a strict justice system. However, Jesus said to offer the other cheek and not seek revenge. The Lord will avenge all evil.

THEREFORE, one could faithfully obey the law of retaliation and still have malice and revenge in the heart.

5. On the issue of love, the OT says to love God with all your being and your neighbor as yourself. However, Christ said that he gives a NEW commandment. His command was to love AS Christ has loved us. Um, that is higher Aaron.

THEREFORE, one could love God with all his heart and his neighbor as himself, but not necessarily love as God has loved.

6. This should have been first, but on the issue of murder, the law forbid killing another. However, Christ existed guilt to even contempt for another.

THEREFORE, the law said not to kill, Christ said not to even have contempt for another.

Christ wasn't giving the divine commentary. He was introducing a law that extended to the heart. The new law, the higher righteousness, the new covenant, the superiority of Christ, they all go together.

Your covenant theology is so obvious.

 

Oh, I almost forgot. Please explain this verse:

Paul as an Apostle makes the authoritative declaration about his own condition as a lost person:

Phil 3:6
AS TO THE RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH IS IN THE LAW, FOUND BLAMELESS

There you go. Paul said that he was blameless as far as the Law's righteousness goes, but he was LOST. He needed a superior righteousness, one that the law could only give witness to.

 

Quoting Benjamin,
"AV1611Jim, the law is not in force to anyone in any way anymore."

Except the Law in the Person of Jesus Christ, "Lord"!

 

Quoting Daniel David,
"Paul said that he was blameless as far as the Law's righteousness goes, but he was LOST. He needed a superior righteousness, one that the law could only give witness to. "

Yea! You've grasped something of the Gospel. I rejoice with you!

 

Quoting Aaron,
"You cannot show us how Christ lived by a higher righteousness than that commanded by the law, because He didn't."

What do you know?
Jesus showed us a higher righteousness than that commanded by the law, by just preaching it, for example in the sermon on the Mountain. How much more sublime did he live it, He "magnified the Law", that is, He made it bigger than before in the moral law e.g., in the Ten Commandments. It requires MORE than the righteousness of the Law to save us; it required not less than "the righteousness OF GOD" - of God Himself - the righteousness of Jesus Christ, the Higher Righteousness of God - higher than any Letter of Law, because actually being THE LAW of GOD in Living Person.

 

There's such a big difference between the righteousness of the Law and the righteousness of God whereby if a man had been saved by he shall live, that Paul called the first the Law of death, and the last, the Law of Life.

 

It's in your lack of comprehension.

This is too easy. Thou shalt not covet is not a prohibition to lust?

By govern you mean that it didn't apply. I'll agree that a carnal heart cannot be governed, but that the law applies to affections of the heart is clear in—guess which!—the Tenth Commandment!

If not, please tell me, which member of the body is the member with which one covets?

God summed up His commandments by saying, (and I repeat myself—again) "What doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul," Deut. 10:12.

Tell me again, O wise one dedicated to truth, which member is the fearing member if it isn't the heart? Which one the loving member?

I've already answered your fallacious interpretations of Matt. 5 in two posts, and in all your verbage you've not answered any of my arguments. It's pointless to keep repeating myself. It would be nice to see you actually take an argument I've made and answer it.

Is the love by which Christ loved us greater than the law commanded? Not at all. You have no argument from me that Christ's love was greater than that of any fallen man, but you err greatly in thinking that the love commanded by His Father was any less than the love Christ showed.

I and St. John have already explained what Christ meant by "new" commandment. Weren't you listening? Obviously not. Therefore, until I see a post that really deals with one of my arguments, I'm done. I'll check back from time to time to see if you can rise to the task. My prediction is that this will go the same way as our discussion eschatology...you'll keep avoiding the questions then quit altogether.

 

A babe could answer this one. How did you say it once? Ah, yes. Please, stop. I feel like a bully!

Yes, in Paul's own blind eyes as a lost person, and the blind eyes of all his lost peers, he was "blameless". Anyone at a third grade reading level can see that's the context of Phil. 3:6.

(You don't really mean to assert that as he murdered Christians he was in faithful obedience to the Sixth Commandment, do you? To persecute Christ is true zeal and blameless according to the law?)

But when the eyes of his understanding were opened, and he saw the depth and breadth of the law, the commandment came and slew him, Romans 7:9. He would not have known lust except the law had said, "Thou shalt not covet, " (vs 7).

Did he cry out, "O blameless man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this innocence?"

No. He cried out, "O wretched man that I am!" He did not keep the law blamelessly, and neither did he claim to.

Now, I've answered everyone of your questions, but you avoid mine. I won't respond until I see a real attempt to answer my arguments.

 

The Scriptures, apparently. Tell me. Which righteousness is fulfilled in them which walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit?