Why Do We Not Follow Ot Law?

[TexUs]

I consider myself a bit more theologically inclined than most church folk (I listen to sermon podcasts daily for FUN!!!

) I do this because, well, I'm tired of church tradition and beliefs getting passed on. One such thing is the old "Well, that's OT and not applicable to us today". I've been struggling with this lately. Where is the Biblical basis for this?
Christ had to pay the price we could not pay, because we couldn't live up to God's standards (the law). We (as people) were to strive toward living this law but we never could, enter Christ.
Christ pays the penalty we cannot. But where are we absolved from still striving to keep the law? Why was the law the "ideal" 2,000 years ago but no longer today?
So the law, today, "applies" in the sense it shows us how fallen we are but does not "apply" in order for us to seek to follow it? It's like writing "Do not take the cookie" on a note on the fridge for your child, but freely allowing them to take it because it's actually not "binding". We know taking the cookie is sin, yet we do it anyway because we aren't bound by it... Isn't taking the cookie knowingly doing something contrary to the law, and what does John say of this, doesn't he call this very thing out?
"If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth."
Is not willingly doing that which we know to be sin, walking in darkness, walking in the world, walking in sin?
That's my intro. You see the problem I have with this. Now on to some Biblical examples.

Matthew 5, "“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
I guess the question could be asked, "What is the law?" first of all, but I will refer to James 3 here:
[font="arial][size="3"]"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."[/size][/font]
[font="arial][size="3"]James lumps the law into a single unit. So when Christ mentions the law, does it not follow he means all of it?[/size][/font]
Yes, I can also buy that this just means the law will be made known until the new heavens and earth. However this goes back to my intro once more, we are given the law but still openly defy it?

Some might suggest some passages such as Galatians 3:
"Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian."
However this is clearly dealing with justification (the word is even in the passage), as I find all (that I've seen) New Testament passages regarding the Law to be dealing with. Yes! Christ paid the penalty. Yes! We are free from the penalty of the Law. But where are we told we are free from no longer trying?
Any insight, once more, Biblically?

 

[aspen]

The sum of the law according to Jesus is love. Since Jesus preached love, He fulfilled the law. Now we are fulfilling the whole of the law by loving God and our neighbor. Paul was not the first to do away with dietary laws for example. Jesus in Matt and Mark told the disciples that what goes into the mouth is not bad, but what come out of the mouth is sinful.

 

[TexUs]

The sum of the law according to Jesus is love. Since Jesus preached love, He fulfilled the law. Now we are fulfilling the whole of the law by loving God and our neighbor. Paul was not the first to do away with dietary laws for example. Jesus in Matt and Mark told the disciples that what goes into the mouth is not bad, but what come out of the mouth is sinful.

We see in Romans 13 that fulfilling the law is seemingly an individual basis thing:
Owe no one anything except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.

Yes, love is fulfilling the law. However, Christ was and still is the only person to have done that. As his commands, lust is adultery, anger is murder... Everyone has done a non-loving action, so once more: Christ was the only person that fulfilled the law.

You, and I, have not fulfilled the law. And plus I think a crucial point is missed, for you and I to try to fulfill the law seems to mean the law is still in place!


Where was the law deprecated?

 

[aspen]

We see in Romans 13 that fulfilling the law is seemingly an individual basis thing:
[font="Helvetica]Owe no one anything except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.[/font]

Yes, love is fulfilling the law. However, Christ was and still is the only person to have done that. As his commands, lust is adultery, anger is murder... Everyone has done a non-loving action, so once more: Christ was the only person that fulfilled the law.

You, and I, have not fulfilled the law. And plus I think a crucial point is missed, for you and I to try to fulfill the law seems to mean the law is still in place!


Where was the law deprecated?

I do not think we have to fulfill the OT by ourselves - individually, as the law was written before we can start following Jesus. I think the very act of loving and forgiving others IS the fulfillment of the law. If you are loving people, you are not committing adultery, murdering, or coveting against them. The main point of the OT was to show us who God is and the main point of the NT is to teach us how to respond to God. Jesus taught us how to respond and the Holy Spirit gives us the power to carry out His ministry.

 

[TexUs]

I do not think we have to fulfill the OT by ourselves - individually, as the law was written before we can start following Jesus.

If this is indeed the "why" then please, do you have any Biblical basis for that?

I think the very act of loving and forgiving others IS the fulfillment of the law. If you are loving people, you are not committing adultery, murdering, or coveting against them.

And when you do commit adultery, murder, or covet, we don't love people, thus the law can't be fulfilled, can it? Unless you are saying it's a "moment in this time" thing. "Right now, I am fulfilling the law", OK- what about in an hour from now? However I do not see this as having Biblical basis as when the priest trips and tries to keep the Ark from falling in the dirt he is instantly killed... God does not judge on "intentions" but on what the law actually says, the law said "Don't touch". James says if one law is broken, all are broken. So I do not see a "moment in time" or intentions thing at all.

Let's look at the OT days... Jews tried to live by law, but they didn't, so they offer a sacrifice. They eventually sinned again, rinse and repeat.
Christ was the once and for all sacrifice for man, but where did the "try to live by law" go to? We don't even TRY anymore? And if law is unbinding then honestly, what's the point of Christ????? If the law is not applicable since we have the option to "start following Jesus", then how are sinners, sinners???? (Remember, the "new" law is built upon the old, you remove the footing of the old and the new has nowhere to stand).


So again, I'm just struggling here.

Now, perhaps you tackle the path of "The old covenants were made with ____ and not us". But the question then becomes why on earth does Paul/John/James/etc refer to them as if they were applicable to all?

 

[aspen]

If this is indeed the "why" then please, do you have any Biblical basis for that?

And when you do commit adultery, murder, or covet, we don't love people, thus the law can't be fulfilled, can it? Unless you are saying it's a "moment in this time" thing. "Right now, I am fulfilling the law", OK- what about in an hour from now? However I do not see this as having Biblical basis as when the priest trips and tries to keep the Ark from falling in the dirt he is instantly killed... God does not judge on "intentions" but on what the law actually says, the law said "Don't touch". James says if one law is broken, all are broken. So I do not see a "moment in time" or intentions thing at all.

Let's look at the OT days... Jews tried to live by law, but they didn't, so they offer a sacrifice. They eventually sinned again, rinse and repeat.

Christ was the once and for all sacrifice for man, but where did the "try to live by law" go to? We don't even TRY anymore? And if law is unbinding then honestly, what's the point of Christ????? If the law is not applicable since we have the option to "start following Jesus", then how are sinners, sinners???? (Remember, the "new" law is built upon the old, you remove the footing of the old and the new has nowhere to stand).


So again, I'm just struggling here.

Now, perhaps you tackle the path of "The old covenants were made with ____ and not us". But the question then becomes why on earth does Paul/John/James/etc refer to them as if they were applicable to all?

I understand that this is a struggle for you - it is not a struggle for me so I may not sound as empathetic as I would like to - the reason is because I have haven't put a lot of thought into the problem - not because I think it isn't valid.

I do not have a verse for why the law was needed in the beginning - I think it was pretty obvious that humans had no idea what right and wrong were after they were kicked out of the Garden and God needed to lay down some ground rules. I think it would have been difficult for him to start out by telling a bunch of tough desert nomads to love their neighbors if He didn't include the 10 commandments.

I think the Be Attitudes are a great place to start if you are interested in seeing how Jesus wants us to fulfill the law today. All the Be Attitudes are love, but show us the different forms it can take.
I think you might be falling into a mindset that the Jewish law is different than Jesus' response to the Father (love) - it is not. The OT stressed obedience and so does the NT. Jesus was clear that the OT law was not abolished - He was the fulfillment. He added a conversion of the heart to a conversion of the mind.
He also said that all the OT laws were actually based on love - even though the Pharisees were stuck in an external understanding of the law - no heart:
[sup]Matt 22[/sup]
[sup][/sup]
[sup]34[/sup] The Pharisees heard that the Sadducees weren't able to answer Jesus. So the Pharisees got together. [sup]35[/sup] One of them was an authority on the law. So he tested Jesus with a question. [sup]36[/sup] "Teacher," he asked, "which is the [sup]14[/sup] "It is true that I worship the God of our people. I am a follower of the Way of Jesus. Those bringing charges against me call it a cult. I believe everything that agrees with the Law. I believe everything written in the Prophets. [sup]15[/sup] I have the same hope in God that these men have. I believe that both the godly and the ungodly will rise from the dead. [sup]16[/sup] So I always try not to do anything wrong in the eyes of God and man.most important commandment in the Law?"
Paul claimed to believe everything that agrees with the law:

[sup]37[/sup] Jesus replied, " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Love him with all your mind.'—(Deuteronomy 6:5) [sup]38[/sup] This is the first and most important commandment. [sup]39[/sup] And the second is like it. 'Love your neighbor as you love yourself.'—(Leviticus 19:18) [sup]40[/sup] Everything that is written in the Law and the Prophets is based on these two commandments."

Yet, Paul got into heated debates with Peter about whether or not Christians had to become Jewish before they became Christian:

Paul Opposes Peter
[sup]11[/sup] When Peter came to Antioch, I told him to his face that I was against what he was doing. He was clearly wrong. [sup]12[/sup] He used to eat with those who weren't Jews. But certain men came from the group that was led by James. When they arrived, Peter began to draw back. He separated himself from the non-Jews. He was afraid of the circumcision group. [sup]13[/sup] Peter's actions were not honest. The other Jews joined him. Even Barnabas was led down the wrong path.

[sup]14[/sup] I saw what they were doing. It was not in line with the truth of the good news. So I spoke to Peter in front of them all. "You are a Jew," I said. "But you live like one who is not. So why do you force non-Jews to follow Jewish ways?"

God's Grace and Our Faith
[sup]15[/sup] We are Jews by birth. We are not "non-Jewish sinners." [sup]16[/sup] We know that no one is made right with God by obeying the law. It is by believing in Jesus Christ. So we too have put our faith in Christ Jesus. That is so we can be made right with God by believing in Christ, not by obeying the law. No one can be made right with God by obeying the law.

The law is no longer enough - we need to be fully converted, mind - heart - spirit. As far as sinning is concerned - Jesus died for us as the final sacrifice - yet, we are still called to ask forgiveness when we fail to love like we are called to do. Because of Jesus we are able to be justified through response, confession, and baptism and sanctified - our hearts are being taught to perspective take, develop empathy, love, and forgive. The Spirit helps us put everything we are learning into practice by loving each other through service.

 

[Jeremiah]

TexUs,
Let me take a stab at this.

The passage/instance that comes to my mind here is the Acts 15 Jerusalem conference. They assembled on that occasion for this very purpose, to discuss whether or not we are to keep the law of Moses. We find there that there were others who were saying that gentiles should do so, but the apostolic answer in verse 24 is "we gave no such commandment".

This is the single biggest controversy in the New Testament. After 1500 years of law-keeping, the Jews found it hard to accept that gentiles could be saved apart from it. Then there were gentiles that seemed to have concluded that because of Paul's rapid success among the gentiles, they were now the chosen of God in place of Israel, who were in large part rejecting the gospel, or at least perverting it (as Paul deals with in Galatians). As such there are so many passages dealing with this issue, and some of them can be tough to understand, as the apostles were dealing with issues they and their audience were all too intimately familiar with, but which we only have one piece of one side of the conversation on.

So I do understand your struggle (at least I think I do) but what we find is that:
Christ came to fulfill the law (Matthew 5:17)
The obligation to keep the law was nailed to the cross (Colosians 2:14; Ephesians 2:15)
The apostles gave no such commandment as to keep the law (Acts 15:24)
The old law has now been completely taken away-(Hebrews 8:13)

While there may be some other difficult passages on the matter, I do believe these provide enough for us to know with certainty that we no longer need to observe the law of Moses.

Does that make sense and does it address your question?

 

[TexUs]

The Galatians passage is a good example however, is it not talking about Justification?

 

[TexUs]

The passage/instance that comes to my mind here is the Acts 15 Jerusalem conference. They assembled on that occasion for this very purpose, to discuss whether or not we are to keep the law of Moses. We find there that there were others who were saying that gentiles should do so, but the apostolic answer in verse 24 is "we gave no such commandment".

This is the single biggest controversy in the New Testament. After 1500 years of law-keeping, the Jews found it hard to accept that gentiles could be saved apart from it. Then there were gentiles that seemed to have concluded that because of Paul's rapid success among the gentiles, they were now the chosen of God in place of Israel, who were in large part rejecting the gospel, or at least perverting it (as Paul deals with in Galatians). As such there are so many passages dealing with this issue, and some of them can be tough to understand, as the apostles were dealing with issues they and their audience were all too intimately familiar with, but which we only have one piece of one side of the conversation on.

Another great example.
Question, what do you take verse 21 to mean? "We should tell them to abstain from ___... For the law of Moses is known"

The obligation to keep the law was nailed to the cross (Colosians 2:14; Ephesians 2:15)

Colosians: "indebtedness", "condemned"... Once more just addresses the penalty only, so- bad example for me.

Ephesians 2:15 I think is great though. Create one unity, no Jew or Gentile by "setting aside the law with its commands and regulations". Much of the law was indeed purposed to set aside Israel from the rest of the world and this in my opinion is very good evidence for the abolition of it.

The old law has now been completely taken away-(Hebrews 8:13)

Another great one, thank you.


Those two verses are key and great verses that do answer the majority of my question. Thank you.


However, on to more "brain storming" though... By what ruler are men now judged?

 

[bud02]

I do not think we have to fulfill the OT by ourselves - individually, as the law was written before we can start following Jesus. I think the very act of loving and forgiving others IS the fulfillment of the law. If you are loving people, you are not committing adultery, murdering, or coveting against them. The main point of the OT was to show us who God is and the main point of the NT is to teach us how to respond to God. Jesus taught us how to respond and the Holy Spirit gives us the power to carry out His ministry.

Wow Aspen what a change of heart in the same day. In the baptism post you had a different reply to works.
I noticed that you didn't tell TexUs about doing all that Jesus commanded like you did me. So which is it grace or works? following the law or knowing Jesus? Romans 7:6

Heres what I;ve seen, people go to a church that teach being baptized in water and the holy Spirit are one in the same. They spend a year or several they end up leaving just as empty as they came. These people have heard all you have to say, been to every sacrament under the sun they soon begin to realize that all church is, is a bunch of dos and donts. These people are very hard to reach their hearts are hard. BTW I don't do as you outlined, I simply teach you can't be saved by following the law. By hearing the word and accepting Jesus in the true gospel they become born again, of the Spirit, Is both my goal and Gods, now their under His complete care and have the seal of the promise. Eph 1:13-14

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/12816-is-baptism-necessary-for-salvation/page__st__30

Matt 28

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. [sup]19[/sup] Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [sup]20[/sup] and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

TexUs I wrote something about the law and offered an explainion of the transformation from the law to grace in the NT to Aspens friends, your welcome to have a look.


http://www.christian...dpost__p__91147
http://www.christian...dpost__p__91800

 

[Xanderoc]

I consider myself a bit more theologically inclined than most church folk (I listen to sermon podcasts daily for FUN!!!

) I do this because, well, I'm tired of church tradition and beliefs getting passed on. One such thing is the old "Well, that's OT and not applicable to us today". I've been struggling with this lately. Where is the Biblical basis for this?
Christ had to pay the price we could not pay, because we couldn't live up to God's standards (the law). We (as people) were to strive toward living this law but we never could, enter Christ.
Christ pays the penalty we cannot. But where are we absolved from still striving to keep the law? Why was the law the "ideal" 2,000 years ago but no longer today?
So the law, today, "applies" in the sense it shows us how fallen we are but does not "apply" in order for us to seek to follow it? It's like writing "Do not take the cookie" on a note on the fridge for your child, but freely allowing them to take it because it's actually not "binding". We know taking the cookie is sin, yet we do it anyway because we aren't bound by it... Isn't taking the cookie knowingly doing something contrary to the law, and what does John say of this, doesn't he call this very thing out?
"If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth."
Is not willingly doing that which we know to be sin, walking in darkness, walking in the world, walking in sin?
That's my intro. You see the problem I have with this. Now on to some Biblical examples.

Matthew 5, "“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
I guess the question could be asked, "What is the law?" first of all, but I will refer to James 3 here:
[font="arial][size="3"]"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."[/size][/font]
[font="arial][size="3"]James lumps the law into a single unit. So when Christ mentions the law, does it not follow he means all of it?[/size][/font]
Yes, I can also buy that this just means the law will be made known until the new heavens and earth. However this goes back to my intro once more, we are given the law but still openly defy it?

Some might suggest some passages such as Galatians 3:
"Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian."
However this is clearly dealing with justification (the word is even in the passage), as I find all (that I've seen) New Testament passages regarding the Law to be dealing with. Yes! Christ paid the penalty. Yes! We are free from the penalty of the Law. But where are we told we are free from no longer trying?
Any insight, once more, Biblically?

I thank God, because you addressed, and asked a profound question "But where are we told we are free from no longer trying?" I will dare and say, no where in God's word does it say, we are not to try, and keep God's holy law. 1john 3:4 says[sup]4[/sup]Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. This says if a person sins, they break God's law! Well my question to you is, are there any sinners in the world today? If so, than that means, there must be a law to follow also! So if there is a law to follow, are we suppose to just follow some? You already know what James said about that. Look at the last book, and chapter of the bible. Rev 22: [sup]14[/sup]Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
God said, in the last chapter of the bible, that bless are those that keep his commandments. Finally I'll leave you with 1 John 2: [sup]3[/sup]And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.[sup]4[/sup]He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. Look what John just said, God said if we don't keep His commandments( laws), but say we know God, are liars and the truth is not in us. Look at vs6&7 [sup]6[/sup]He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.[sup]7[/sup]Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning. John said we are to walk as Christ walked, he also said he didn't write a new commandment, but an old commandment which he heard from the beginning. My question to you Tex is, What commandment did John hear from the beginning if there wasn't a new testament written yet? Was the commandment something he heard from the old testament writers?

 

[TexUs]

I thank God, because you addressed, and asked a profound question "But where are we told we are free from no longer trying?" I will dare and say, no where in God's word does it say, we are not to try, and keep God's holy law. 1john 3:4 says[sup]4[/sup]Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. This says if a person sins, they break God's law! Well my question to you is, are there any sinners in the world today? If so, than that means, there must be a law to follow also!

Absolutely agree and I think you accurately follow my logic ;)

So if there is a law to follow, are we suppose to just follow some? You already know what James said about that. Look at the last book, and chapter of the bible. Rev 22: [sup]14[/sup]Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
God said, in the last chapter of the bible, that bless are those that keep his commandments. Finally I'll leave you with 1 John 2: [sup]3[/sup]And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.[sup]4[/sup]He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

The commands (of Christ, I'd say) could be different than "the law", IMO.
However this does go back to what John said about no new command, just a reiteration of the old.

What commandment did John hear from the beginning if there wasn't a new testament written yet? Was the commandment something he heard from the old testament writers?

Absolutely. What do we suppose the Apostles preached from??? What do we suppose the believers shared with one another??


So, you see my argument well, then.

However, these verses pointed out earlier, how do you reconcile these with the above argument?
Ep 2:15, "setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace"
Heb 8:13, "By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear."

 

[Xanderoc]

[/color][/size]
However, these verses pointed out earlier, how do you reconcile these with the above argument?
Ep 2:15, "setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace"
Heb 8:13, "By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear."

Well lets look at the scriptures together, and we can reason together. Eph 2:[sup]13[/sup]But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. [sup]14[/sup]For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; [sup]15[/sup]Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; [sup]16[/sup]And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

So my first question is from vs 14, What was the middle wall of partition between us, and God? Answer, SIN was. So what is the penalty for sin? Death. In the old covenant they sacrificed animals as the penalty for their sins. Now lets view 15, and ask another question, What did Jesus abolish in His flesh, Answer, Sin! What law is Paul speaking of here? Answer, the sacrificial law. Read vs 16, and we can see Paul was talking of the sacrificing of Jesus body. So we can conclude if you read it all in context, Paul was talking about the sacrificial law in vs 15.

Now for Heb 8:13

Lets read it together Heb 8: [sup]7[/sup]For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

[sup]8[/sup]For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:


So we notice God's making a new covenant, Finding fault in them...Who is them?


[sup]9[/sup]Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

[sup]10[/sup]For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:


So God didn't find faul with the covenant, He found fault with the people, but notice what He put into their minds.... The Law, is what He wrote on their hearts. Before God wrote the Laws on tables of stone. This time He wrote those same laws on the hearts of men. Jesus proved the in Matthew 5: 21-22, 27-28. Jesus used the same laws, but now it was written in the mind.


[sup]11[/sup]And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

[sup]12[/sup]For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

[sup]13[/sup]In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

So, what was the first that became old. Carrying around the law written on tablets of stone in an ark. Now He placed those same laws in our hearts, and minds.Vs 13 couldn't be speaking of the law decaying, and waxing old, or, why would He write them in our hearts?

[/color][/size]

The commands (of Christ, I'd say) could be different than "the law", IMO.
However this does go back to what John said about no new command, just a reiteration of the old.

How is the commandment of Christ, different from the law?

 

[TexUs]

Well lets look at the scriptures together, and we can reason together. Eph 2:[sup]13[/sup]But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. [sup]14[/sup]For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; [sup]15[/sup]Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; [sup]16[/sup]And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

So my first question is from vs 14, What was the middle wall of partition between us, and God? Answer, SIN was.

Actually the wall was between the Jews and Gentiles. Not sure what translation you're using but look at a more accurate literal one such as the ESV or even the NIV gets it right here.
"For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility"
What were the two groups? Who were the two parties in the "both"? V11, "Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision”"
What was the barrier between those two groups? Not sin, sin was the common ground, the barrier between the circumcision group and the uncircumcision group was THE LAW. Which we then see in V15, "by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations." he sets it aside to remove the barrier between the two groups.


So my question is still present... How do you reconcile that Christ removed the law with the prior argument?


In typing this something dawned on me... The Gentiles were without the law of Israel, of the Jews. And that is exactly what this is talking about, the law was removed... Gentiles didn't have to follow the law of the Jews to be saved, and it was made obsolete for the Jews.
I think this is what the text is teaching here. The two groups in question were not God and man but Jews and Gentiles, the barrier was not sin but the law.


Now, then, my question still stands... How does one reconcile Christ removing the law with the argument of a law still standing?

So, what was the first that became old. Carrying around the law written on tablets of stone in an ark. Now He placed those same laws in our hearts, and minds.Vs 13 couldn't be speaking of the law decaying, and waxing old, or, why would He write them in our hearts?

How is the commandment of Christ, different from the law?

I think these two ideas are related so I quoted them together, but in Hebrews 8 I don't get the sense he is referring to his old laws... "I will create a new covenant and put my laws into their hearts"... Speaks toward a new set of laws, does it not?
So IMO the possibility is that different sets of laws are being referred to. One set being OT law and one set being the teachings of Christ?

The commandment of Christ is different from the law as evidenced in many places mainly circumcision, sacrifices, etc... Christ obviously made obsolete at least SOME parts of the law. Since James treats the law as a whole then does it follow that all of the law is void since some of it is void? And does this then not create what's simply "Old Law" and "New Law"?

 

[aspen]

I think Paul does a nice job of explaining why we do not follow the law in Romans 14 - 15, as well. I just reread Romans last night - what an awesome book.

 

[Xanderoc]

[/color][/size]
Actually the wall was between the Jews and Gentiles. Not sure what translation you're using but look at a more accurate literal one such as the ESV or even the NIV gets it right here.
I'm reading the King James Version. I agree with what you said concerning the partition. You are correct as far as the Jews, and Greeks.Thanks for the correction.


So my question is still present... How do you reconcile that Christ removed the law with the prior argument?
Now I disagree about Christ removing the law. The law Christ removed was the sacrificial law. All the others are still to be observed.


Now, then, my question still stands... How does one reconcile Christ removing the law with the argument of a law still standing?

Are you asking the question, to find an answer, or are you asking the question to correct what you consider bad doctrine. Which one is it?



I think these two ideas are related so I quoted them together, but in Hebrews 8 I don't get the sense he is referring to his old laws... "I will create a new covenant and put my laws into their hearts"... Speaks toward a new set of laws, does it not?
Well lets read same thing in Heb 10 from the beginning.
Heb 10:[sup]1[/sup]For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. [sup]2[/sup]For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

[sup]3[/sup]But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.


So we see here the writer is talking about the sacrificial law


[sup]10[/sup]By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

[sup]11[/sup]And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

[sup]12[/sup]But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;


We see here Jesus had offered one sacrifice for sin for ever. Now look what the writer goes on to say.


[sup]15[/sup]Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

[sup]16[/sup]This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;


He said the Holy Ghost is witness, He said put His laws into their heart. What were his laws? He didn't say a New law, He said His Laws! The same laws He gave to them from the beginning.


[sup]17[/sup]And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

[sup]18[/sup]Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

[sup]19[/sup]Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

[sup]20[/sup]By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

This new, and living way allows us to go before the thrown under His blood in prayer. We no longer need a high priest, Jesus has become our High Priest. He was the final sacrifice. That was the law that got abolished. Not the commandments. So I will ask you to show me in the scripture what new law did Jesus bring?



So IMO the possibility is that different sets of laws are being referred to. One set being OT law and one set being the teachings of Christ?
I disagree with this statement, simply because Christ himself said He did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill. He didn't bring any new laws. If so, show me His new Law, we will examine it, and see if it wasn't written in the old.

The commandment of Christ is different from the law as evidenced in many places mainly circumcision, sacrifices, etc... Christ obviously made obsolete at least SOME parts of the law. Since James treats the law as a whole then does it follow that all of the law is void since some of it is void? And does this then not create what's simply "Old Law" and "New Law"?
I don't know where you are trying to go with that statement????

 

[bud02]

Romans 5:13 before 10 commandments

Romans 3:19-20 after 10 commandments

Romans 7:6

[sup]7[/sup] What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”[sup][a][/sup] [sup]8[/sup] But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. [sup]9[/sup] I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. [sup]10[/sup] And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. [sup]11[/sup] For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. [sup]12[/sup] Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

 

[Rach1370]

[Christ Came to Fulfill the Law]
[17] “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
(Matthew 5:17 ESV) -This passage explains how Jesus and the kingdom fulfill the law of Moses; this is the key to interpreting the Sermon on the Mount and indeed the whole of Jesus' ministry

[The Great Commandment]
[34] But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. [35] And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. [36] “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” [37] And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. [38] This is the great and first commandment. [39] And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. [40] On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
(Matthew 22:34-40 ESV)

[4] You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
(Galatians 5:4; Galatians 5:5-6 ESV) [5] For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. [6] For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
(Galatians 5:4; Galatians 5:5-6 ESV)

[13] So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
(1 Corinthians 13:13 ESV)

[10] Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
(Romans 13:10 ESV)

[5] The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. [6] Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, [7] desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.
(1 Timothy 1:5-7 ESV)

[8] Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.
(1 Peter 4:8 ESV)

There are so many wonderful verses about love in the bible! And note that when it talks of the importance of love, of repentance, of salvation; it doesn't tack on...oh yeah, and keep all the old Laws too.
Please understand, this is not to say that I dismiss the Laws altogether, I just believe that all the 'ritualistic cleansing' laws have been deemed unnecessary by Jesus sacrifice. We are now made 'clean' in God's eyes by Christs blood. And the 10 Commandments? I believe that any sincere Christian, who loves Jesus with all their might and strive daily not to sin and repent of sin they do commit, then I believe that the 10 have been observed, as most of them come under "Love God more than anything" and "have no idols".

Anyway, that's my take, and I strongly feel its a biblical one!

 

[TexUs]

Romans 5:13 before 10 commandments

Romans 3:19-20 after 10 commandments

Romans 7:6

[sup]7[/sup] What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”[sup][a][/sup] [sup]8[/sup] But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. [sup]9[/sup] I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. [sup]10[/sup] And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. [sup]11[/sup] For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. [sup]12[/sup] Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

And where are you going with this??

[Christ Came to Fulfill the Law]
[17] “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
(Matthew 5:17 ESV) -This passage explains how Jesus and the kingdom fulfill the law of Moses; this is the key to interpreting the Sermon on the Mount and indeed the whole of Jesus' ministry

But you miss the statement in the middle of that sentence...

[4] You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
(Galatians 5:4; Galatians 5:5-6 ESV) [5] For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. [6] For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
(Galatians 5:4; Galatians 5:5-6 ESV)

Do you supposed murder doesn't count for anything, either?
Nay, this is dealing with salvation itself... I, again, have no beef with the fact that salvation is in Christ alone and not by following the law. That's clear...

I just believe that all the 'ritualistic cleansing' laws have been deemed unnecessary by Jesus sacrifice. We are now made 'clean' in God's eyes by Christs blood. And the 10 Commandments? I believe that any sincere Christian, who loves Jesus with all their might and strive daily not to sin and repent of sin they do commit, then I believe that the 10 have been observed, as most of them come under "Love God more than anything" and "have no idols".

What defines sin? The law.
You said any sincere Christian will strive not to sin, so does it not follow that any sincere Christian should strive to follow the law?

So my question is still present... How do you reconcile that Christ removed the law with the prior argument?
Now I disagree about Christ removing the law. The law Christ removed was the sacrificial law. All the others are still to be observed.

And how are you determining sacrificial and not?
Do you trim the edges of your beard? Wear two different type of materials of clothing?

Now, then, my question still stands... How does one reconcile Christ removing the law with the argument of a law still standing?

Are you asking the question, to find an answer, or are you asking the question to correct what you consider bad doctrine. Which one is it?

I was asking a question... How do you reconcile those two passages?

The commandment of Christ is different from the law as evidenced in many places mainly circumcision, sacrifices, etc... Christ obviously made obsolete at least SOME parts of the law. Since James treats the law as a whole then does it follow that all of the law is void since some of it is void? And does this then not create what's simply "Old Law" and "New Law"?
I don't know where you are trying to go with that statement????

James treats the law as a unit.
"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."

[font="tahoma]As a unit, does it not follow that if the sacrificial part of the law is dead, that all the law is dead?[/font]
[font="tahoma]
[/font]
[color="#0000FF"]

 

[Xanderoc]

What defines sin? The law.
You said any sincere Christian will strive not to sin, so does it not follow that any sincere Christian should strive to follow the law?
Amen.That was a good response. Sincere Christians should strive to follow the law of God.
[/color][/font][/color]
[font="tahoma][color="#0000ff"]And how are you determining sacrificial and not?[/color][/font]
By understanding both the old , and new covenants, and what they were established on. They were both established on keeping the law of
God, except in the old covenant animals were killed to atone for the sins of men. In the new covenant Jesus blood , and sacrifice atones for the sins of men. Once you understand the law that was added, you will begin to see the difference in the laws.
[font="tahoma][color="#0000ff"]Do you trim the edges of your beard? Wear two different type of materials of clothing?
[/color]No, and I know where your trying to go with that.....
[/font]
[font="tahoma]James treats the law as a unit.[/font]
[font="tahoma][color="#5d5d5d"][font="arial][size="2"]"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."[/size][/font]
[/color][/font]
[font="tahoma]As a unit, does it not follow that if the sacrificial part of the law is dead, that all the law is dead?[/font]
[font="tahoma]
[/font][color="#ff0000"]No, just because the sacrificial law was done away with, that doesn't mean all the law is dead. Jesus is the one that ended the sacrificial law. Do you think James didn't know about Jesus ending the sacrificial law when he made this statement. He knew, and we can conclude James wasn't including the sacrificial law when he made that statement. Besides, if we understand scripture we know that the law of God, has always existed. Lets look at the commandments for a sec, and see if they were not around. God established the 4th commandment, sabbath day law in Genesis, during creation. The first commandment was broken by Adam, because Adam put Satan before God. Cain knew it was wrong to murder, because if you read and notice Cane's response. Cain lied, and said he didn't know where his brother was, after he killed him. Read Gen 7:2 and that will let you know the clean animal law was already there. Noah took clean animals by 7, and unclean animals by 2. That would indicate God explain to him what animal was clean, and unclean.
So God's royal law has always been here. As a matter of fact, who was the first being to sin? Satan was! What is sin? Transgression of the law! So Satan transgress God's law before man was on earth. Look at something interesting that Moses asked God, but more importantly look at God's response. Exodus 33:17-23, 34:1-8 Moses asked God to show him God's glory. The Lord responded by writing the Law on stone, and proclaiming the Lord's name. The very name of God, His personality is associated with His law. Now why would Jesus in the new testament abolish His own law. That is like saying He abolished God's very name!
The law that was added in Galatians 3: 17, the sacrificial law was abolished. That law was added, so man's sin can be forgiven by the blood of the animal sacrificed. Jesus change that law, Heb 7: 12. Jesus change the priesthood, and the law that came with it. Heb 9:1 Speaking of the covenant that Jesus changed. My point is God's royal law has always been here! We should strive to keep His laws!
[/color][font="tahoma]
[/font]