You who argue we are still under the Law of Moses, and you who deny we are under any Law at all....
So what are you arguing, that we are not under the Law of Moses or not under any Law of God at all? I prefer not to talk so much about being under the Law of God because it sounds too much like I'm saying we're under the Law of Moses. We're not--we're only under the Law of God in the sense that we are under the standards and lordship of Christ.
Need I show again and again how the author of Hebrews and Paul both argued against the idea anybody is under the Law of Moses any longer? (I believe Hebrews was written by Barnabas.) Hebrews plainly indicated that the Sabbath has been replaced by hope in "another Sabbath"--the Kingdom of God. He argues that the 1st Covenant had become the "Old Covenant" because the New Covenant had come. He argued that the true temple is a "heavenly temple"--not the old earthly one, which worship was soon to be ended by the 70 AD disaster. He argued that animal sacrifices could "never take away sins," ie the Sin Nature. He argued that the true priesthood belonged not to a faulty priesthood, but to a perfect, sinless priest, who lives forever.
Paul makes it absolutely clear that the eternal covenant is based on a "promise" in Romans, and not on a Law of working past the Sin Nature. He argued that Jewish ritual was only being practiced to show respect for potential Jewish converts, and not because either Jewish or Gentile believers were obligated to follow them. He argued that circumcision was actually internal, and not necessary in the physical sense. And he went so far as to say the Spirit is given not out of obedience to the Law, and that those who rely on the Law for salvation are under a curse.
When Paul talks about "works that do not justify," he wasn't saying that Christians don't do good works, nor viewing them as unnecessary in the Christian life. Rather, he was speaking of works under the Law of Moses, which were meant to show the incapacity of Man to obtain justification apart from Christ.
You can show all day long that Christians are required to do works, but you cannot show that works justify men apart from Christ. And if so, then the Law of Moses is needless, because Christ came apart from the Law and was not under any Law. He was spotless, and as such, redeemed us apart from a failed system that proved incapable of saving Israel. He saved us by his own righteousness, apart from the Law. And so we live by his righteousness, and not by the righteousness of the Law.
So what are you arguing, that we are not under the Law of Moses or not under any Law of God at all? I prefer not to talk so much about being under the Law of God because it sounds too much like I'm saying we're under the Law of Moses. We're not--we're only under the Law of God in the sense that we are under the standards and lordship of Christ.
Need I show again and again how the author of Hebrews and Paul both argued against the idea anybody is under the Law of Moses any longer? (I believe Hebrews was written by Barnabas.) Hebrews plainly indicated that the Sabbath has been replaced by hope in "another Sabbath"--the Kingdom of God. He argues that the 1st Covenant had become the "Old Covenant" because the New Covenant had come. He argued that the true temple is a "heavenly temple"--not the old earthly one, which worship was soon to be ended by the 70 AD disaster. He argued that animal sacrifices could "never take away sins," ie the Sin Nature. He argued that the true priesthood belonged not to a faulty priesthood, but to a perfect, sinless priest, who lives forever.
Paul makes it absolutely clear that the eternal covenant is based on a "promise" in Romans, and not on a Law of working past the Sin Nature. He argued that Jewish ritual was only being practiced to show respect for potential Jewish converts, and not because either Jewish or Gentile believers were obligated to follow them. He argued that circumcision was actually internal, and not necessary in the physical sense. And he went so far as to say the Spirit is given not out of obedience to the Law, and that those who rely on the Law for salvation are under a curse.
When Paul talks about "works that do not justify," he wasn't saying that Christians don't do good works, nor viewing them as unnecessary in the Christian life. Rather, he was speaking of works under the Law of Moses, which were meant to show the incapacity of Man to obtain justification apart from Christ.
You can show all day long that Christians are required to do works, but you cannot show that works justify men apart from Christ. And if so, then the Law of Moses is needless, because Christ came apart from the Law and was not under any Law. He was spotless, and as such, redeemed us apart from a failed system that proved incapable of saving Israel. He saved us by his own righteousness, apart from the Law. And so we live by his righteousness, and not by the righteousness of the Law.
Last edited:
