So what's so new about the new Covenant, and is it better, really?

[Tong2020]

Sorry Tong, you are speaking of very profound things, but you are not explaining them. The Law leads to Christ, how? How does the Law keep Israel on guard, without saving them?
The Law lead the Israelites to Christ, as it did the Gentiles, only once the Gospel was revealed, no one saw that coming. The Messiah as a political monarch, yes, but not a suffering Messiah to be crucified before he reached 35 years of age.
David said that the Law brought life. Paul said that it brought death - but that is the profundity of the paradox. If recognized as such, as something that entices the flesh (forbidden fruit), then one has an advantage to overcome it. Meaning, it wasn't obligatory death.

Thank you for asking.

<<<The Law leads to Christ, how?>>>

By the law, sin then can be imputed upon the transgressor, thereby making him guilty of sin against God, which was not the case before the law was given. There was judgment, and corresponding punishment (curse) awaiting them. The law condemns them. The law bring wrath to them who transgress the commandments. And the law, while it provided for atonement and forgiveness of sin, the sacrifices offered continuously and year after year, reminded them of their sinfulness and helplessness. That ought to have taught them that of their own effort and will, that no matter how they wanted to, they could not attain to the righteousness of the law. In other words they can’t save themselves, as they could not remove and free themselves of sin. That then ought to bring them to the promised Messiah of God, the one who can save them. They were told of the Messiah, even by Moses, a prophet like Moses, Moses having been sent by God to save them from slavery in Egypt, a type wherein is a situation where they found themselves helpless and could only be set free by a savior and would be saved by hearing him and believing in him. Then God also throughout the years, had spoken through prophets about the Messiah. But why when the Messiah came, that Israel did not received Him, we know the story. Not that the law failed in its purpose, but because of them and of many factors.

<<<How does the Law keep Israel on guard, without saving them?>>>

If not for the law that was given to them by God as a code written in scriptures to be taught them and by which they are to observe and keep, with the judgment and curses and all that was included therein, that they should walk and live by them, they would have been like the rest of mankind, who became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. God would have gave them up to uncleanness, to vile passions, and given over to a debased mind, on their way to certain destruction. The law in that sense kept them under guard, until their Messiah comes.

Tong
R1866

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<God demanded adherence to it, and if so, for what purpose?>>>

Paul, in Gal.3:23-24 tells us that the law was given to keep them (who are under the Law) under guard, at least until Christ comes, and that the law is their tutor, teacher, schoolmaster, to them to the Savior, that is, the Christ, that they might be justified by faith.

<<<Just because God instituted a new Law, of Faith, it does not mean that the former Law had no efficacy or purpose, other than ritual or formality. >>>

First of all, faith is not new. Remember Abraham?

I have already told you what Paul said was the purpose of the law in Gal.3.

<<<It had the power to bring life, which is why David extolled it as such.>>>

No doubt, the law has power and is good and holy, in the sense that it came from God. For nothing comes from God devoid of power. But the law was just simply not given for that purpose. As I pointed out what Paul said relative to that, saying “For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.”

Paul said that after the fact. He was explaining how just the notion of Law implies sin. In a world where there is no evil intent, a Law becomes redundant or moot, this was Paul's point of discrediting the efficacy of the Law. The austerity of the Law is what caused men to sin/fail, plus the inherent enticement of it, but the fulfillment of it would've been the victor's glory.
It was a Covenant of blood, meaning it gave life, and could only be both ratified, and annulled with blood. The Law brought both life and death, but since death prevailed, God, by His grace and the obedience of one man, offered to rescind it. And this is the dichotomy that Paul speaks about, one Law bringing death, and the other life.

<<<Paul said that after the fact.>>>

Paul said that in revelation, more than in reasoning.

<<<The austerity of the Law is what caused men to sin/fail, plus the inherent enticement of it, but the fulfillment of it would've been the victor's glory.>>>

In a sense the austerity of the law was a factor why sin abounded, but I would not say that it is the law or the austerity of it is what caused them to sin. The law is good and holy, remember? Causing them to sin isn’t at all a good thing.

The fulfillment of it would’ve been victory for the one who fulfills it. But then, not one was and is able, except of course Jesus Christ. And God knows that, for He knows man. He had spoken of this in Gen.6:5, that every intents of the thoughts of his heart is continually evil, even from childhood. So, we can understand why God had not given the law as a way for them to be saved by works, by the works of the law, nor gave it as means by which they will have justification by the works of the law.

Tong
R1867

 

[Brakelite]

I shall leave this for everyone for your consideration...
3 Spiritual laws that govern life.
“For I delight in

Law One: ……….The law of God.

after the inward man”…..(Romans 7:22)

Paul has nothing but love and respect for God’s law. He considers it ‘holy, just and good’. (Rom.7:12) It is Paul’s earnest and deepest desire to honor that law, and to keep all the commandments,

” but I see another law in my members, warring against the law (of God) of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to….” (v23cont.)

Law Two:………..“...The law of sin which is in my members." Rom.7:23

Paul delights in obedience, but finds that in the carnal nature resides a law which makes it impossible, the law of sin. Paul confesses his wretchedness and guilt. “Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” he cries. (Verse 24)

“I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh, the law of sin.” (vs 25)

But if Paul is bound by the law of sin, despite his best intentions to obey the law of God, how then can he overcome? The answer is just 2 verses later.
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For…

Law Three:……….the law of the Spirit of life…

in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” Romans 8:1,2.

Three Laws.

1. The law of God which is holy, just, and good.
2. The law of sin which binds the carnal man making it impossible to obey the law of God.
3. The law of the Spirit of life which through the grace and power of God makes it possible for the reborn child of God to obey the law of God, if he relies on and walks after the Spirit and not after the flesh.

The law of sin has no power over them who are completely surrendered to Christ. That is why elsewhere Paul can assert that to those who walk in the Spirit they are transformed by the renewing of their minds, and are recreated into the image of the character of Christ. A character that is obedient and a mind (like Christ’s) which delights in the law of God and rejoices that by faith in the power and grace of God he may be obedient to all the commandments.

So how does the above harmonize with the two covenants, and which of the above laws was nailed to the cross? Surely not number 3, that would make no sense whatsoever. Nor can one and two both be nailed to the cross, because they were warring against one another in Paul's mind, God's law convicting, the carnal law of sin imprisoning. So. Which was nailed to the cross, and why? In other words, my two questions from my previous post continue to be relevant...which was nailed to the cross, and what law was added because of transgressions? So far the consensus has been for just one law. I beg to differ.

 

[justbyfaith]

I shall leave this for everyone for your consideration...
3 Spiritual laws that govern life.
“For I delight in

Law One: ……….The law of God.

after the inward man”…..(Romans 7:22)

Paul has nothing but love and respect for God’s law. He considers it ‘holy, just and good’. (Rom.7:12) It is Paul’s earnest and deepest desire to honor that law, and to keep all the commandments,

” but I see another law in my members, warring against the law (of God) of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to….” (v23cont.)

Law Two:………..“...The law of sin which is in my members." Rom.7:23

Paul delights in obedience, but finds that in the carnal nature resides a law which makes it impossible, the law of sin. Paul confesses his wretchedness and guilt. “Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” he cries. (Verse 24)

“I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh, the law of sin.” (vs 25)

But if Paul is bound by the law of sin, despite his best intentions to obey the law of God, how then can he overcome? The answer is just 2 verses later.
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For…

Law Three:……….the law of the Spirit of life…

in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” Romans 8:1,2.

Three Laws.

1. The law of God which is holy, just, and good.
2. The law of sin which binds the carnal man making it impossible to obey the law of God.
3. The law of the Spirit of life which through the grace and power of God makes it possible for the reborn child of God to obey the law of God, if he relies on and walks after the Spirit and not after the flesh.

The law of sin has no power over them who are completely surrendered to Christ. That is why elsewhere Paul can assert that to those who walk in the Spirit they are transformed by the renewing of their minds, and are recreated into the image of the character of Christ. A character that is obedient and a mind (like Christ’s) which delights in the law of God and rejoices that by faith in the power and grace of God he may be obedient to all the commandments.

So how does the above harmonize with the two covenants, and which of the above laws was nailed to the cross? Surely not number 3, that would make no sense whatsoever. Nor can one and two both be nailed to the cross, because they were warring against one another in Paul's mind, God's law convicting, the carnal law of sin imprisoning. So. Which was nailed to the cross, and why? In other words, my two questions from my previous post continue to be relevant...which was nailed to the cross, and what law was added because of transgressions? So far the consensus has been for just one law. I beg to differ.

It should be clear that it is the OT law that has been nailed to the Cross (Romans 6:14, Romans 7:4, Galatians 2:19, Romans 7:6, Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14, Hebrews 7:18-19).

And that this is concerning condemnation.

For as believers under the New Covenant, it should be clear that we are still governed by the law (Hebrews 8:8-10, Hebrews 10:16, Romans 8:7, Romans 8:4, 1 John 5:3, 2 John 1:6, Romans 13:8-10; Romans 5:5; 1 Corinthians 15:34, 1 John 3:4) as we behave according to the love that has been shed abroad in our heart; and the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us.

 

[BloodBought 1953]

]It had the power to bring life, which is why David extolled it as such.

Paul revealed that the Law was “ weak and useless “ in that it had “NO POWER to Save”....this is why God “ found fault” with it and replaced it with the Gospel Of 1Cor15:1-4.....That Gospel and it alone has the POWER to Save...

 

[Tong2020]

I shall leave this for everyone for your consideration...
3 Spiritual laws that govern life.
“For I delight in

Law One: ……….The law of God.

after the inward man”…..(Romans 7:22)

Paul has nothing but love and respect for God’s law. He considers it ‘holy, just and good’. (Rom.7:12) It is Paul’s earnest and deepest desire to honor that law, and to keep all the commandments,

” but I see another law in my members, warring against the law (of God) of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to….” (v23cont.)

Law Two:………..“...The law of sin which is in my members." Rom.7:23

Paul delights in obedience, but finds that in the carnal nature resides a law which makes it impossible, the law of sin. Paul confesses his wretchedness and guilt. “Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” he cries. (Verse 24)

“I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh, the law of sin.” (vs 25)

But if Paul is bound by the law of sin, despite his best intentions to obey the law of God, how then can he overcome? The answer is just 2 verses later.
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For…

Law Three:……….the law of the Spirit of life…

in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” Romans 8:1,2.

Three Laws.

1. The law of God which is holy, just, and good.
2. The law of sin which binds the carnal man making it impossible to obey the law of God.
3. The law of the Spirit of life which through the grace and power of God makes it possible for the reborn child of God to obey the law of God, if he relies on and walks after the Spirit and not after the flesh.

The law of sin has no power over them who are completely surrendered to Christ. That is why elsewhere Paul can assert that to those who walk in the Spirit they are transformed by the renewing of their minds, and are recreated into the image of the character of Christ. A character that is obedient and a mind (like Christ’s) which delights in the law of God and rejoices that by faith in the power and grace of God he may be obedient to all the commandments.

So how does the above harmonize with the two covenants, and which of the above laws was nailed to the cross? Surely not number 3, that would make no sense whatsoever. Nor can one and two both be nailed to the cross, because they were warring against one another in Paul's mind, God's law convicting, the carnal law of sin imprisoning. So. Which was nailed to the cross, and why? In other words, my two questions from my previous post continue to be relevant...which was nailed to the cross, and what law was added because of transgressions? So far the consensus has been for just one law. I beg to differ.

To answer your question, the law that was nailed to the cross was the old covenant law, the law of Moses. The written code of commandments, and precepts, with the judgement and curses, that was given to Israel through Moses, that kept them under guard and serve as their tutor and schoolmaster to bring them to Christ. That was the law that was added to the covenant of God with Abraham because of transgressions.

Tong
R1873

 

[justbyfaith]

]It had the power to bring life, which is why David extolled it as such.

Paul revealed that the Law was “ weak and useless “ in that it had “NO POWER to Save”....this is why God “ found fault” with it and replaced it with the Gospel Of 1Cor15:1-4.....That Gospel and it alone has the POWER to Save...

To be more accurate, the law does not have the power to impart life (Galatians 3:21); while it does have the power to convert a soul (Psalms 19:7 (kjv)), in that it shows us to be sinners in need of a Saviour (Romans 3:20), and in this is a schoolmaster to lead men to Christ (Galatians 3:24).

 

[DNB]

<<<The Law leads to Christ, how?>>>

What you described Tong, is a conflict of principles. The two Laws , works and faith, were enacted simultaneously for one is antithetical to the other. You have truly confounded two mutually exclusive legalities, it's either one or the other, one makes the other redundant - who needs sacrifice when sins are no more accounted for.

God implemented the Law by blood, and not one jot or tittle will fail until it gets fulfilled. Thus, the Law had to be abrogated before instituting a new law. You are conflating two entirely separate judicial systems, that cannot be implemented in unison.

<<<How does the Law keep Israel on guard, without saving them?>>>

Again, you're stating one thing, that the Law kept the Israelites in check, but by historical evidence, it had absolutely no efficacy for they committed everything that you claimed it was to deter them from. The Law was meant to condemn, it was not a superfluous injunction that was only meant as a guideline, or a 'do your best if you can' precept. It was austere in both ordinances and punishments, it both gave life, and took it away as readily. It was meant to save, but by arduous means until the time of Christ came. And once that the principles of Christ were explained in the NT, then the Jews were meant to realize the obsolete and lethal nature of the Law, not prior, for it was not revealed as such.

Tong, you're speaking extremely hypothetically, you know very well that Christ was not taught in the OT. There are allusions, but they do not suffice to save by Grace. For even us under the New Dispensation, it takes 27 books to get the point across, ...and even then some of us still are slow to comprehend.

 

[DNB]

<<<Paul said that after the fact.>>>

Paul said that in revelation, more than in reasoning.

<<<The austerity of the Law is what caused men to sin/fail, plus the inherent enticement of it, but the fulfillment of it would've been the victor's glory.>>>

In a sense the austerity of the law was a factor why sin abounded, but I would not say that it is the law or the austerity of it is what caused them to sin. The law is good and holy, remember? Causing them to sin isn’t at all a good thing.

The fulfillment of it would’ve been victory for the one who fulfills it. But then, not one was and is able, except of course Jesus Christ. And God knows that, for He knows man. He had spoken of this in Gen.6:5, that every intents of the thoughts of his heart is continually evil, even from childhood. So, we can understand why God had not given the law as a way for them to be saved by works, by the works of the law, nor gave it as means by which they will have justification by the works of the law.

Tong
R1867

But, He did not institute it for no deliberate and tangible reason also. Christ was not revealed in the OT, it foreshadowed his coming, but there was not a single Jew, even at the time of Christ, that understood who he was until the epistles. You know that this is true, so you cannot hypothesize that Christ as saviour, was known and worshipped by the OT saints.

 

[justbyfaith]

it (the law) both gave life,

The law has never had the power to impart life (Galatians 3:21).

 

[Brakelite]

To answer your question, the law that was nailed to the cross was the old covenant law, the law of Moses. The written code of commandments, and precepts, with the judgement and curses, that was given to Israel through Moses, that kept them under guard and serve as their tutor and schoolmaster to bring them to Christ. That was the law that was added to the covenant of God with Abraham because of transgressions.

Tong
R1873

So let me understand you correctly. Romans 7 as I showed previously, reveals 3 laws.
The law of God which wars against the law of sin, and the law of the spirit of life which frees us from bondage to sin. It seems you are saying, and I am open to being corrected, that it is the law of God given through Moses which points out sin which is nailed to the cross. This therefore leaves the law of sin in the human mind still very much alive and kicking yes? Why would God destroy His own law rather than the law of sin?

 

[Brakelite]

It should be clear that it is the OT law that has been nailed to the Cross (Romans 6:14, Romans 7:4, Galatians 2:19, Romans 7:6, Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14, Hebrews 7:18-19).

As I peruse through those texts you have quoted. I see no evidence that "the old testament law" died according to the first 4 verses above. It is me who died according to those verses, which then freed from the law which did not die. In the next 3 verses Paul speaks of ordinances which "were against us", being "contrary to us" , and in the Hebrews text quoted, unable to impart life. Please explain how any of the texts you quoted are related...which law they refer to in common, how God's laws can possibly be contrary to us if they lead us to Christ, and how any law which is unable to impart life necessarily means it must die, as if it held no other purpose?

 

[justbyfaith]

That the law also died is evident in Romans 7:6. "that being dead wherein we were held" refers both to our flesh and the law. "the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death." (Romans 7:5).

If the law did not die, we at the very least died to the law. So, the law does not any longer have jurisdiction over us in the manner of the condemnation that the law brings about.

It does have jurisdiction over us in that it continues to be a governing factor in our lives.

Not that we look to a set of do's and don'ts and try to obey them; but that we don't violate those do's and don'ts because we bear the fruit of the Spirit against which there is no law (Galatians 5:22-23).

It is a righteousness apart from the law that is nevertheless attested to by the law and the prophets (Romans 3:21) that it is righteousness indeed.

Because we are forgiven of past, present, and future sins, the law no longer applies to us in condemnation.

However, if we are born again, we have the Spirit of the living God dwelling within us; and He motivates us to live holy: and such a holy life as what the Spirit produces in us is never in violation of the law of the Lord.

The righteousness of the law is fulfilled in those who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit (Romans 8:4).

 

[Brakelite]

That the law also died is evident in Romans 7:6. "that being dead wherein we were held" refers both to our flesh and the law. "the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death." (Romans 7:5).

A law died, but it couldn't have been the law concerning adultery because that law must also apply to the relationship with the new husband right?

 

[justbyfaith]

A law died, but it couldn't have been the law concerning adultery because that law must also apply to the relationship with the new husband right?

What Paul says about the law concerning adultery is part of an illustration that tells us that the law has died or that we have died to the law. As such, it identifies as separate from the fact that the law has died or that we have died to the law.

This means that the law concerning adultery has indeed died or that we have died to it.

 

[Brakelite]

What Paul says about the law concerning adultery is part of an illustration that tells us that the law has died or that we have died to the law. As such, it identifies as separate from the fact that the law has died or that we have died to the law.

This means that the law concerning adultery has indeed died or that we have died to it.

Huh?

 

[justbyfaith]

Huh?

The law of the Old Testament is the law that we are no longer under, are dead to, and are delivered from; as concerning condemnation but not as concerning governance.

 

[Cooper]

Huh?

2:14 Paul now goes on to describe something else that was included in the work of Christ. Having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

The handwriting of requirements that was against us describes the law. In a sense, the Ten Commandments were against us, condemning us because we did not keep them perfectly. But the Apostle Paul is thinking not only about the Ten Commandments, but also about the ceremonial law that was given to Israel. In the ceremonial law, there were all kinds of commandments with regard to holy days, foods, and other religious rituals. These were all a part of the prescribed religion of the Jews. They pointed forward to the coming of the Lord Jesus. They were shadows of His Person and His work. In His death on the cross, He took all this out of the way, nailing it to the cross and cancelling it as a bill is cancelled when the debt is paid. As Meyer put it: “By the death of Christ on the cross, the law which condemned men lost its penal authority, inasmuch as Christ by His death endured for man the curse of the law and became the end of the law.”

Paul's language here very likely refers to an ancient practice of nailing the written evidence of a cancelled debt in a public place as a notice to all that the creditor (God) had no more claim on the debtor (us). Jesus paid the penalty of our sin. "It is finished" said Jesus and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

(Believers Bible)
.

 

[Cooper]

The law of the Old Testament is the law that we are no longer under, are dead to, and are delivered from; as concerning condemnation but not as concerning governance.

Are you saying we are no longer under the law, but we are still governed by the law?

How about rephrasing it and saying "We are not under law but under grace"?

Reminder: non Jews have never been under the Jewish Mitzvot Laws found in the Pentateuch (Torah).
.

 

[Brakelite]

The law of the Old Testament is the law that we are no longer under, are dead to, and are delivered from; as concerning condemnation but not as concerning governance.

Okay, that's clearer. We read in the NT that the law was never for a righteous man. It was for sinners. Thieves, murderers, adulterers, covetous, etc etc. Which is why Paul was so torn in Romans 7, recognizing the righteous demands of the law of God being holy and perfect, but also recognizing that in himself, there was the law of his rebellious nature that was at war with God's law. Praise God for Jesus he said because there was his answer. Now, there is no condemnation. He's a new man. Forgiven. Grace is always greater than sin. Now, Paul and Jesus are in a covenantal relationship that Paul described figuratively as a marriage. There is no law necessary in order to convince Paul to love his Husband. If your wife left a note on the breakfast table every morning saying, "don't commit adultery", and on your pillow every night, "don't commit adultery", then I would imagine you would be not a little aggrieved at the unnecessary reminder of your obligations. You love her! Of course you're not going to commit adultery. Yet, if you did for some terrible moment yield to that temptation, would you not be reminded of your obligation to your wife and that your declarations of love are all a little hollow in comparison to the law that your love and life even, was meant to fulfill? Is then the law for you, now you are convicted of your unrighteousness? I believe so, absolutely, because no longer are you living as a righteous man. Are you then under the law, under its condemnation, until such time as you repent? Again, I believe yes.