The Law of God in the NT - What is it?

[BobRyan]

An interesting topic came up on the "Romans 11 and OSAS" thread - specific to identifying the "Law of God" -- what NT authors call "The Commandments of God" in places like 1Cor 7:19 and Rev 14.

In Matt 22 Jesus is asked by Hebrew and scripture scholars of his day - about the greatest commandment.

Jesus said there are two -

Deut 6:5 Love God with all of your heart
Lev 19:18 Love your neighbor as yourself.

Jesus said that the entire Word of God was based on these two foundation pillars.

And everyone agreed.

So precross we have Hebrew scholars all in agreement on this point.

In James 2 - James quotes those same OT Laws calling them "the Royal Law".

Then in that same chapter James quotes from the Ten Commandments calling them "the Law of Liberty".

In Romans 2 Paul says that - all both Jew and Gentile must be found "doers of the Law" as Christ said in Matt 7 "not everyone who SAYS Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven but he who DOES the will of My Father".

Originally Posted by Andre
True enough, but just because these principles are asserted to be the underpinning of the Law of Moses, and just because we are to still live by these principles, it simply does not logically follow that the Law of Moses is still in force.

And if it is, then Paul was not writing by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit when he declares its abolition here in Ephesians 2:

by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

I will get back to you on Romans 2.

So in Romans 2 Paul says "not the hearers of the Law but the DOERS of the Law will be justified"

In Romans 3 Paul again addresses the question for NT saints "Do we then make VOID the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we establish the Law".

Paul is addressing the very question many people ask - which is "doesn't Christianity do away with the Bible texts that proclaim the Law of God"??

It appears that the answer in Romans 3 is - God's Law remains.


So then what about Ephesians 2 -- is Paul abolishing law finally in Eph 2? If so - which law? "The Commandments of God"?


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In Romans 7 Paul speaks of the Law of God then quotes from it - showing that it is the Ten Commandments.

In Eph 6 Paul says that the 5th commandment is the "first commandment with a promise". That is only true inside the unit of "TEN".

In James 2 that law is quoted and called the "Law of Liberty" by which all are to be judged.

In 1Cor 7:19 Paul says "what matters is keeping the Commandments of God".

In Matt 5 Jesus also address the issue of "did Jesus come to do away with the Law of God".

In Romans 2 "Not the hearers of the Law that are just before God - but the DOERS of the Law WILL be justified". What law is that?

In Heb 8 the "LAW is written on the heart" under the New Covenant - but this is a quote of the OT promise of the New Covenant. Which means that the "definition" for Law is the OT definition.

Fine - so Then what is going on in Eph 2?

The Law of God is not abolished in Rom 3:31 -- but in Eph 2:15 the ceremonial law "contained in ordinances" that required a separation between Jews and Gentiles - was ended. In Heb 10 we see the point that the ceremonial law with its "sacrifices and offerings" was put to an end by the once for all sacrifice of Christ.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Marcia]

[/I]

So in Romans 2 Paul says "not the hearers of the Law but the DOERS of the Law will be justified"

In Romans 3 Paul again addresses the question for NT saints "Do we then make VOID the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we establish the Law".

Paul is addressing the very question many people ask - which is "doesn't Christianity do away with the Bible texts that proclaim the Law of God"??

The point of the quote in Rom. 2 above is that yes, hypothetically people who do the law would be justified but then Paul goes on in Romans to show that nobody can do this! In fact, it is his whole argument, also in Galatians. God always knew no one could keep the law.

The Law is good because it reflects the character of God and shines a light on our own sinfulness (see Rom 7 where Paul discusses this). The Law is the standard of the character of God, something man cannot keep or achieve.

These verses (I also posted in the other thread) clearly show that we cannot keep the law and if we could, then Christ died in vain.

...for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly. Gal. 2:21

Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." Gal 3:11

Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. Gal. 3:24

You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. Gal. 5:4

I think the SDA teaches you can keep the law, but the Bible says you can't.

 

[steaver]

I see nothing in the 1 Timothy text that speaks against the notion that people can sin without reference to the law. What, and please be specific, do you see in this text, or any other, that says effectively "sin is only defined in terms of the violation of the Law of Moses".

Paul declares the Law was made for "sinners".

1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Paul declares that he was a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious. So why do you believe Paul kept the Law?

1Ti 1:13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did [it] ignorantly in unbelief.

Paul believed he was "chief of sinners". So why do you believe he kept the Law?

1Ti 1:15 This [is] a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Is blaspheme, persecution and injuring others addressed in the Law? Paul says he was chief of sinners.

 

[billwald]

The law of the NT is statements made by Jesus, the Apostles, and Paul concerning acceptable standards of morality and behavior.

 

[BobRyan]

There is a modern idea of "Good Bible" vs "Bad Bible" as if the real secret is to "ignore the Bad Bible" and "obey the good Bible". Some call this "New Testament" vs "Old Testament".

But that is not what you see the NT authors doing. They affirm the Old Testament as "scripture".

The only thing that Paul "condemns" is the idea of having the lost try to earn their way to salvation by keeping the Law.

In Gal 3 Paul says that there is no such thing as a time when earning salvation by law-keeping used to "work".

In Gal 1 Paul says that in all of time there has only ever been ONE Gospel - and that is saved by Grace through faith not of works lest anyone should boast.

That was just as true in the Old Testament. Paul says in Heb 4:1 that "WE were preached the Gospel JUST as THEY also".

In Heb 8 Paul "reminds" us that in the Old Testament God gives the promise of the "New Covenant" which included "My LAWS written on their hearts". Since this is an Old Testament teaching from God's Word - an Old Testament concept - then the term "My Laws" is in the Old Testament context by definition.

That may be so, but this is hardly an argument that the Law of Moses still applies.

You seem to be arguing as if you discount the possibilty that the plan of redemption that God is working out in the world never has transition points and that what is true in the Old Testament is true this side of the cross.

You are really constructing a strawman here, implicitly setting me in the role of someone with the "Good Bible" vs "Bad Bible" mindset. However, that claim cannot stick - I am in no way saying the Law of Moses is a bad thing. It is a good thing whose time came to an end at the cross:

Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

I suggest a picture where the Law of Moses served a particular goal in the plan of God and that goal was fulfilled at the cross. So the Law is now retired, having done its job. I am not sure how you can avoid the implications of several clear statements by Paul that the Law of Moses has been abolished, not least the one from Ephesians 2 as per my last post.

That is true of the ceremonial law and as Paul says in Heb 10 Christ put a stop to sacrifices and offerings by His once for all atoning sacrifice on the Cross.

So I agree that there was a huge transition point between the nation church concept established at Sinai with its ceremonial system of predictive laws - predicting the coming of the Messiah - vs the post-Cross Christian age (persecuted church model) that we have now.

However Christ did not put a stop to
Ex 20 --
"you shall have no other God's before Me"
"you shall not covet"
"honor your father and mother"

Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself"
Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart".

When Paul is rebuked because he insults the high priest - Paul quotes Moses and confesses that he (Paul) was therefore wrong to insult the high priest.

Paul deals specifically with the question of whether our faith actually does abolish the Law of God as we find it in scripture "do we then make void THE LAW by our Faith? God forbid! In fact we establish the Law" Rom 3:31 making it clear in 1Cor 7:19 that he is talkinga bout "The commandments of God" and in Eph 6:1-2 making it clear that the FITH commandment "Honor your Father and Mother" is the FIRST one in that set of commandments "with a promise" as we find it ordered/placed in scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I think the SDA teaches you can keep the law, but the Bible says you can't.

1. There is no place where the Bible says a born-again Christian cannot keep the Law of God - - no not even "one".

2. There ARE texts showing that the saints DO "KEEP the commandments of God" Rev 14:12 and that "What MATTERS is keeping the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19.

in fact the same author that tells us the saints are those who "KEEP the Commandments of God" Rev 14:12 is the one that tells us that if we DO NOT Keep His Commandments and yet CLAIM to be one of the saints - we are not telling the truth 1John 2:4.

You are free to call these texts "Seventh-day Adventist" if you like - but they were written long before the Seventh-day Adventist church came along.

Christ said that He did not come with the mission of ending the Law of God - but rather He came to perfectly comply with it (Matt 5:17 -- after it -- God's WORD is Law.


John says that "SIN is (by definition) transgression of the Law" 1John 3:4

Paul says that the LAW defines SIN Rom 7:7

Paul says that the one who claims they cannot stop rebelling against God's Law (are enslaved to sin) and are not going to get eternal life. Rom 6:16

Thus your "saints must sin" and "saints cannot keep God's Law" idea - only fits one of these scenarios actually found in scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The point of the quote in Rom. 2 above is that yes, hypothetically people who do the law would be justified but then Paul goes on in Romans to show that nobody can do this! In fact, it is his whole argument, also in Galatians. God always knew no one could keep the law.

Actually Paul is very careful in Romans 2 to show BOTH the succeeding cases AND the failing cases. And after doing that he zeros in on an "extreme successful case" where he takes a gentile with no access to scripture at all and shows that even THEY succeed "showing the works of the Law WRITTEN on the heart".

Paul affirms in Romans 2 that the gentiles who walk in obedience to God's Law are counted as real Jews - while those Jews who happen to be in rebellion against God (so that would NOT be Jews like Paul, or Timothy, or Peter or Barnabus or the Heb 11 list or ...) are just as lost as any lost gentile.

 

[billwald]

Good response, BobRyan.

If the Jerusalem Council, in their charge to Paul, wanted the gentile Christians to observe the 10 words of the Mosaic Covenant it could have been included in less than 10 words. The Jerusalem Council knew that the Mosaic Covenant was never meant for gentiles in Hoboken.

For example, the command about honoring parents - the payoff was that the person would "live long in the land." What land? Brooklyn?

 

[billwald]

>God always knew no one could keep the law.

Then why did God have Moses write:

Deuteronomy 30:11-16 (New International Version)

The Offer of Life or Death

11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. 16 For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.

V. 16 should be noted. The bulk of the material referred to had no effect until they entered the land.

 

[BobRyan]

Good response, BobRyan.

If the Jerusalem Council, in their charge to Paul, wanted the gentile Christians to observe the 10 words of the Mosaic Covenant it could have been included in less than 10 words. The Jerusalem Council knew that the Mosaic Covenant was never meant for gentiles in Hoboken.

For example, the command about honoring parents - the payoff was that the person would "live long in the land." What land? Brooklyn?

Indeed in Acts 15 nothing is said about "thou shalt not murder" or "honor your parents" or "do not covet" or "do not lie".

In Acts 15 no mention at all is made of "Love the Lord your God with all your heart".

But that is not needed - because as James notes in Acts 15 "Moses IS preached in the Synagogue every Sabbath" and thus AS we SEE in Acts 13 the gentiles were already hearing the Scriptures read every Sabbath.

The thing being "debated" in Acts 15 is whether gentiles ALSO needed to be circumcised and thus BECOME Jewish converts - not merely Christians who accepted scripture and worshipped the One true God.

The promised LAND - even in Abraham's day - was heaven and then the New Earth according to Heb 11.

Paul affirms that the Ten Commandments REMAIN in the NT - including the 5th commandment which is "the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:1-2 -- telling us to "Honor your father and mother".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Andre]

I hope to chime in here reasonably soon......

 

[steaver]

That is true of the ceremonial law and as Paul says in Heb 10 Christ put a stop to sacrifices and offerings by His once for all atoning sacrifice on the Cross.

So I agree that there was a huge transition point between the nation church concept established at Sinai with its ceremonial system of predictive laws - predicting the coming of the Messiah - vs the post-Cross Christian age (persecuted church model) that we have now.

However Christ did not put a stop to
Ex 20 --
"you shall have no other God's before Me"
"you shall not covet"
"honor your father and mother"

Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself"
Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart".

When Paul is rebuked because he insults the high priest - Paul quotes Moses and confesses that he (Paul) was therefore wrong to insult the high priest.

Paul deals specifically with the question of whether our faith actually does abolish the Law of God as we find it in scripture "do we then make void THE LAW by our Faith? God forbid! In fact we establish the Law" Rom 3:31 making it clear in 1Cor 7:19 that he is talkinga bout "The commandments of God" and in Eph 6:1-2 making it clear that the FITH commandment "Honor your Father and Mother" is the FIRST one in that set of commandments "with a promise" as we find it ordered/placed in scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

In the spirit of unity and brotherhood let me say that I like the way you structured this post. Give credit where credit is due. It is a good exegesis.

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

1. There is no place where the Bible says a born-again Christian cannot keep the Law of God - - no not even "one".

2. There ARE texts showing that the saints DO "KEEP the commandments of God" Rev 14:12 and that "What MATTERS is keeping the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19.

in fact the same author that tells us the saints are those who "KEEP the Commandments of God" Rev 14:12 is the one that tells us that if we DO NOT Keep His Commandments and yet CLAIM to be one of the saints - we are not telling the truth 1John 2:4.

You are free to call these texts "Seventh-day Adventist" if you like - but they were written long before the Seventh-day Adventist church came along.

Christ said that He did not come with the mission of ending the Law of God - but rather He came to perfectly comply with it (Matt 5:17 -- after it -- God's WORD is Law.


John says that "SIN is (by definition) transgression of the Law" 1John 3:4

Paul says that the LAW defines SIN Rom 7:7

Paul says that the one who claims they cannot stop rebelling against God's Law (are enslaved to sin) and are not going to get eternal life. Rom 6:16

Thus your "saints must sin" and "saints cannot keep God's Law" idea - only fits one of these scenarios actually found in scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

What in the world is going in here! :applause: Another exegesis I can agree with. :thumbsup:

Just to clariffy one point though, it's not that saints cannot keep the Law, we can, however not with perfection every moment of every day. We still can fail and we still need our Advocate.

:jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

In the spirit of unity and brotherhood let me say that I like the way you structured this post. Give credit where credit is due. It is a good exegesis.

:jesus:

Thank you sir - I'll take it!

 

[steaver]

Actually Paul is very careful in Romans 2 to show BOTH the succeeding cases AND the failing cases. And after doing that he zeros in on an "extreme successful case" where he takes a gentile with no access to scripture at all and shows that even THEY succeed "showing the works of the Law WRITTEN on the heart".

Paul affirms in Romans 2 that the gentiles who walk in obedience to God's Law are counted as real Jews - while those Jews who happen to be in rebellion against God (so that would NOT be Jews like Paul, or Timothy, or Peter or Barnabus or the Heb 11 list or ...) are just as lost as any lost gentile.

I agree, but remember that Paul was in rebellion before his conversion on the road to Damascus. Paul was just like those other Pharisees who refused to obey the testimony of the OT concerning the Christ. So Paul was in rebellion before he was saved.

:jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

What in the world is going in here! :applause: Another exegesis I can agree with. :thumbsup:

And again - thank you sir. I will take what I can get in this regard.

Just to clariffy one point though, it's not that saints cannot keep the Law, we can, however not with perfection every moment of every day. We still can fail and we still need our Advocate.

:jesus:

I agree that "we still can fail".

But I would not agree to "we still MUST fail at some point".

Failure to obey God - or failure to resist temptation is not presented as a "requirement" for the saints or as "a must" in the Bible. From the standpoint of scripture (see 1cor 10) there is no sin that we "must commit" as born-again saints. This is a fact based on the "faithfulness of God" not the merits of man.

Thus we see in 1Cor 10 "NO temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man - and God is faithful who will not ALLOW..."

etc etc.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Indeed in Acts 15 nothing is said about "thou shalt not murder" or "honor your parents" or "do not covet" or "do not lie".

In Acts 15 no mention at all is made of "Love the Lord your God with all your heart".

But that is not needed - because as James notes in Acts 15 "Moses IS preached in the Synagogue every Sabbath" and thus AS we SEE in Acts 13 the gentiles were already hearing the Scriptures read every Sabbath.

The thing being "debated" in Acts 15 is whether gentiles ALSO needed to be circumcised and thus BECOME Jewish converts - not merely Christians who accepted scripture and worshipped the One true God.

The promised LAND - even in Abraham's day - was heaven and then the New Earth according to Heb 11.

Paul affirms that the Ten Commandments REMAIN in the NT - including the 5th commandment which is "the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:1-2 -- telling us to "Honor your father and mother".

in Christ,

Bob

This is getting crazy! Good post Bob! :thumbs:

Let me encourage you brother and say that these last few post of yours have been easy to follow and informative. I could easily see where you where coming from and why you ended up where you did in your pov.

I would suggest, and this is just a humble suggestion, take it or leave it, but when you make those big bold, red and blue, and VERY LONG post I just don't follow them. In fact lately I have just been scrolling past them because I just don't have the time.

It bothers me when I get my own post too long at times and I try to stuff to much infomation into one post. It makes it easier when we keep them manageable and on target. Your last few post were easy to read. I would stick with this style. Just my opinion :thumbs:

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

I agree that "we still can fail".

But I would not agree to "we still MUST fail at some point".

Failure to obey God - or failure to resist temptation is not presented as a "requirement" for the saints or as "a must" in the Bible. From the standpoint of scripture (see 1cor 10) there is no sin that we "must commit" as born-again saints. This is a fact based on the "faithfulness of God" not the merits of man.

Thus we see in 1Cor 10 "NO temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man - and God is faithful who will not ALLOW..."

etc etc.

in Christ,

Bob

I can give some leeway on this and I wouldn't say it like we "MUST fail" but I would say that we most certainly will fail. Do you know any born of God child that hasn't? I believe an honest survey would show this to be true. How about you, have you failed since your rebirth? I have, many times. And you have to consider babes in Christ who must learn the commandments of God and how to resist the devil and etc, etc. I don't know of any babies who are perfect with this from birth (spiritual birth that is).

:jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

I can give some leeway on this and I wouldn't say it like we "MUST fail" but I would say that we most certainly will fail. Do you know any born of God child that hasn't? I believe an honest survey would show this to be true.

:jesus:

The "proof" in your argument is not from scripture - it is from what you see around you. The argument you make is that while the Bible does not state "you will continue to fail" or "you must continue to fail" or "here is THE sin you must continue to commit from time to time" -- yet because we see Christian fail around us - we are free to invent that as some kind of infallible divine doctrine.

I draw the line at that point.

in Christ,

Bob