Randy Kluth
Well-Known Member
Plainly put the Law of Moses clearly was *not* implied from the beginning when God made Man in His own image! The Law came much later!
I explained all this in my previous post. What was good under the time of the Law was no longer required when the time of the Law no longer existed. It served a good purpose in showing what God was like. But it was linked to ceremonies that was time-dependent. Once full redemption had been made by Christ, righteousness was no longer linked to redemptive ceremonies that never could provide final redemption.
That is not the definition of the New Covenant. Jer 31 spoke of the time when national Israel will accept the New Covenant of Christ. This passage did not define the New Covenant as a Gentile version of observing the Law of Moses!
You are mis-reading what the perpetuity of the Law was intended to convey to Israel. It was designed to show the intractable nature of the Law, in condemning all human works apart from the redemption of Christ. It illustrated Christ's righteousness in comparison with imperfect humanity, which keeps us all from Eternal Life until it was made available by Christ himself.
The longevity of the Law was always predestined to end in Israel's failure, as we read in the latter part of Deuteronomy. It was "eternal" insofar as God's moral requirements are eternal, whether under that system or under a new system.
But the Law was never intended to apply once final redemption from sin had been obtained by Christ. Jer 31 plainly teaches that the "eternal Law" would ultimately be fulfilled by a brand new version of that Law, dismissing the Law as such entirely.
"This will not by like that Covenant," the passage says (paraphrased). It will not be by the Law of Moses that God's Law will ultimately be fulfilled.
I believe the Scriptures say the exact opposite of this. The Law of Moses is clearly in mind when Paul refers to the "Law of Sin and Death!"
Paul elsewhere describes the Law of Moses as the source of human condemnation. It called for Israel to be righteous, but even so Israel's righteousness was shown to be in serious need of redemption.
This was the disqualifying element under the Law--any sin in the believer, any sin in the observer of the Law. Men could be justified as righteous under the Law, but only on a temporary basis. Ultimately, they were disqualified by their shortcomings and were disqualified from Eternal Life. Christ alone could redeem them.
I'll never say that Faith is the opposite of the Law unless we are comparing the means of obtaining Eternal Life. Faith obtains Eternal Life by reference to Christ as its object. The Law, as a system, is Self-Atoning, and is delegitimized by the contamination of the human observer of that system.
Faith operated under the Law, and achieves a temporary righteousness, sufficient to have kept Israel in relationship with God and in favor with God. But Faith could never obtain Eternal Life until Christ completed the objective of Faith, which looked beyond the Law and its condemnation of human sin.
We cannot walk in a "sinless" way like Jesus did--not as long as we are part of the Old Creation. We can only partake in *his* sinless nature. We can only produce his sinless righteousness as a character attribute in our own human, imperfect way. We show his love and kindness, even as we also show flawed human character defects.
The Law was never meant to show that Israel could walk in a "sinless" way! On the contrary, it showed that all Israel required atonement for sin. They were all contaminated with sin even as they obeyed the rituals of the Law.
To "sin no more" refers to our general commitment to living a righteous life. It does not refer to a determination to be "sinless."
I disagree. The Law and its condemnation of human sin is what Jesus nailed to the tree when he himself was nailed to the tree. Jesus represented the Law and its condemnation of all humanity. Nailing himself to the cross indicated that the path to Eternal Life comes through resurrection, and not by the Law itself.
Beyond this I think we're just going to disagree on what Paul and the New Testament Scriptures mean when they indicate Christ stands apart from the Law of Moses as the source of our justification. Have a nice day.
