The Christian And The Law

[Jason]

Deja vu all over again, I know.
Just doin' a lil thinking about the Christian and the law.

1. Jesus fulfilled the law Mt 5:17-18. Something that is fulfilled has served its purpose and its goal has been reached, it seems.
2. Jesus abolished the law in His flesh Eph 2
3. The law of the OT has been set aside Heb 7-9
4. The law is fulfilled when we love Rom 13:8-10;Gal 5:14
5. The law is for the unrighteous 1Tim 1:9-11

That being so, is the law at all relevant to the believer today?

[Michael Neubaum]

xulon said:

Derek said:

in short, how can you define moral behavior without God?

You can't and I'm not sure how you are reading this into what I said. The New Testament is clear that the Law of Moses is passed (See the Scriptures in the OP). Dismissing these verses by just declaring that those who accepts them want to ignore God or His morality really does not work as a hermeneutic. If you wish to divide the Law into components, some fulfilled and no longer binding and some unfulfilled and binding, you have to justify it Scripturally and deal with what the Scriptures say about the Law of Moses, not just claim I wish to ignore God.

Hebrews makes it clear that there are distinctions in the law.

“For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” Heb. 7:12

Clearly there is a change in the law, not an end to it. The context goes not to elaborate:

“For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.” Heb. 7:12

There is a setting aside of commandments that were weak and unprofitable. Thou shalt not have any other God before Yahweh is still profitable as is thou shalt not commit adultery, while sin offerings are not. The former was never set aside while the latter certainly were. Contrary to many Messianic doctrine the law is divisible as to its standing otherwise Christ wouldn’t have been queried as to which was the GREATEST commandment.

[Michael Neubaum]

Lisa Robinson said:

I'm pulling this up for those who have commented on the Christ being Dead to the Law thread and still believe that we have to follow the Law of Moses.

According to Acts 15 this is so. Paul was instructed to dispel accusations that he was teaching against the Mosaic covenant by assuming the expenses of a group coming to the end of their Nazarite vows to verify that he also, was keeping “the law”, but the very next verse supports the decree of the council again that as touching the Gentiles, “that they observe no such thing.”

“As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.” Acts 21:25

The antecedent here is without question the circumcision of Moses and MC, for it was James and the Jerusalem council that coached Paul to assume the expenses; for this reason there can be no confusion that “the law” in context is the Mosaic covenant and the Gentile converts weren’t obliged to keep as if it still had standing at law. Clearly the law of Moses, Torah, has changed and it is one of the reasons the Gentiles provoke the Jews to jealously for the ultimate release of the ceremonies.

[Harry]

Lutherans understands that God uses his Law in three ways. First to maintain external discipline in civil life or society. Second, God leads us to recognize our sin. Third, guide the Christians in order that Christians will know what is pleasing to Him. Lutherans believe that these three functions of the Law are described as a curb. mirror and a rule. Our old sinful flesh is with us until we die. We need the Law as a guide for works that are pleasing to God and are appointed by God for us to do. Otherwise we would dream up or image things that are pleasing to God. We believe that that these three functions are not three Laws by God, but one Law with three functions.

[Ann Wilson]

What about the laws against incest?
Can a man now marry his mother and a woman her father and other kinfolk intermarry the same family tree?
See Leviticus 18.

[Jack]

Joanne; I thought the conscience was to convict us of sin, and leave us without any claim of ignorance, and therefore, without excuse. But it would be wrong for a believer to say: "Let your conscience be your guide." Or "Do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't bother you." No, The Word of God, and His Spirit is to be our guide. But the NT word also says that if you believe that some action is sin, but you do it anyway, then, it IS sin, for you. Sorry, but I can't come up with chapter and verse, right now. Grace to y'all.

joanne guarnieri said:

From Derek: when we flippantly sin and disregard it, that shows we don't trust Jesus at all.

That is the crux of the matter, whether one is truly abiding in Christ, or not. Antinominaism is going to be a symptom of not abiding in Christ, but then, so will be legalism. Both are the detritus of something other than knowing and being known by Christ.

When God gives a rule for living (let's say kosher eating) that stems from something deeper, so we say that there are ceremonial laws and civil laws in the Old Testament that stem from a deeper source, which is then referred to as God's moral law. If I understand Paul's writing on this matter in Romans 1-2, then this deeper source code is written into every person's conscience. Interestingly, the New York Times has an article about this very thing in today's paper (one's conscience).

So we have our consciences to help us. The New Testament also helps to understand the practical outworking of union with God and a new nature. I rather see these not as commands that can be broken, but rather explanations of the way things are. If the command can be broken then that is a reflection of the nature that was at work at the time.

[Lisa Robinson]

Ephesians 2:14-15 (NET)

For he is our peace, the one who made both groups into one and who destroyed the middle wall of partition, the hostility, when he nullified in his flesh the law of commandments in decrees. He did this to create in himself one new man out of two, thus making peace.

CONTEXT: the Gentiles were separated from the covenant promises to Israel and therefore were excluded from full rights and privileges as people of God. What separated them? vs.11 - the Law. What did Christ do to it? nullified it through his death (vs. 14). Christ is the end of the law (Romans 10:4). I don't see how the law of commandments in decrees is divisible here. He rendered it all of it inoperative for the believer.

Michael Neubaum said:

xulon said:

Derek said:

in short, how can you define moral behavior without God?

You can't and I'm not sure how you are reading this into what I said. The New Testament is clear that the Law of Moses is passed (See the Scriptures in the OP). Dismissing these verses by just declaring that those who accepts them want to ignore God or His morality really does not work as a hermeneutic. If you wish to divide the Law into components, some fulfilled and no longer binding and some unfulfilled and binding, you have to justify it Scripturally and deal with what the Scriptures say about the Law of Moses, not just claim I wish to ignore God.

Hebrews makes it clear that there are distinctions in the law.

“For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” Heb. 7:12

Clearly there is a change in the law, not an end to it. The context goes not to elaborate:

“For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.” Heb. 7:12

There is a setting aside of commandments that were weak and unprofitable. Thou shalt not have any other God before Yahweh is still profitable as is thou shalt not commit adultery, while sin offerings are not. The former was never set aside while the latter certainly were. Contrary to many Messianic doctrine the law is divisible as to its standing otherwise Christ wouldn’t have been queried as to which was the GREATEST commandment.

[Jack]

Lisa; It is my understanding of OT statements that Gentiles could be circumcised, and make all the same sacrifices and offerings that the Jews could, but the Jews still called the Gentiles "Dogs." In Jesus day, even circumcised Gentiles were not allowed into the inner part of the temple, like "real" Jews could. And after Cornelius and friends were Spirit Baptized, just like the Jewish believers, on Pentecost, the Jews reluctantly acknowledged that God had accepted Gentiles, in Jesus, also. Yes, Jesus did destroy the "wall" separating believing Jews and Gentiles, but the Jews were still trying to hold up the wall. Strange how history has reversed the situation, back and forth, and later Gentile "Christians" persecuted the Jews, and wouldn't let them into Church unless they renounced ALL their Jewish customs, etc. I cry, because, even today, there are Messianic Jews, that the "Gentile" church doesn't care a "flip" about and for them.

Lisa Robinson said:

Ephesians 2:14-15 (NET)

For he is our peace, the one who made both groups into one and who destroyed the middle wall of partition, the hostility, when he nullified in his flesh the law of commandments in decrees. He did this to create in himself one new man out of two, thus making peace.

CONTEXT: the Gentiles were separated from the covenant promises to Israel and therefore were excluded from full rights and privileges as people of God. What separated them? vs.11 - the Law. What did Christ do to it? nullified it through his death (vs. 14). Christ is the end of the law (Romans 10:4). I don't see how the law of commandments in decrees is divisible here. He rendered it all of it inoperative for the believer.

Michael Neubaum said:

xulon said:

Derek said:

in short, how can you define moral behavior without God?

You can't and I'm not sure how you are reading this into what I said. The New Testament is clear that the Law of Moses is passed (See the Scriptures in the OP). Dismissing these verses by just declaring that those who accepts them want to ignore God or His morality really does not work as a hermeneutic. If you wish to divide the Law into components, some fulfilled and no longer binding and some unfulfilled and binding, you have to justify it Scripturally and deal with what the Scriptures say about the Law of Moses, not just claim I wish to ignore God.

Hebrews makes it clear that there are distinctions in the law.

“For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” Heb. 7:12

Clearly there is a change in the law, not an end to it. The context goes not to elaborate:

“For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.” Heb. 7:12

There is a setting aside of commandments that were weak and unprofitable. Thou shalt not have any other God before Yahweh is still profitable as is thou shalt not commit adultery, while sin offerings are not. The former was never set aside while the latter certainly were. Contrary to many Messianic doctrine the law is divisible as to its standing otherwise Christ wouldn’t have been queried as to which was the GREATEST commandment.

[Lisa Robinson]

Jack, yeah the one new body he created (the church) is a pretty powerful statement concerning unity in Christ. How tragic when we impose a system that Christ has rendered obsolete to determine how we treat the brother and sister in Christ, when equal access has been granted through his sacrificial death.

[Ann Wilson]

Jack said:

Joanne; I thought the conscience was to convict us of sin, and leave us without any claim of ignorance, and therefore, without excuse. But it would be wrong for a believer to say: "Let your conscience be your guide." Or "Do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't bother you." No, The Word of God, and His Spirit is to be our guide. But the NT word also says that if you believe that some action is sin, but you do it anyway, then, it IS sin, for you. Sorry, but I can't come up with chapter and verse, right now. Grace to y'all.

joanne guarnieri said:

From Derek: when we flippantly sin and disregard it, that shows we don't trust Jesus at all.

That is the crux of the matter, whether one is truly abiding in Christ, or not. Antinominaism is going to be a symptom of not abiding in Christ, but then, so will be legalism. Both are the detritus of something other than knowing and being known by Christ.

When God gives a rule for living (let's say kosher eating) that stems from something deeper, so we say that there are ceremonial laws and civil laws in the Old Testament that stem from a deeper source, which is then referred to as God's moral law. If I understand Paul's writing on this matter in Romans 1-2, then this deeper source code is written into every person's conscience. Interestingly, the New York Times has an article about this very thing in today's paper (one's conscience).

So we have our consciences to help us. The New Testament also helps to understand the practical outworking of union with God and a new nature. I rather see these not as commands that can be broken, but rather explanations of the way things are. If the command can be broken then that is a reflection of the nature that was at work at the time.

[Ann Wilson]

Anyone:

What law that is NOT being NULLLIFIED, but being ESTABLISHED, that Paul speaks of in

Rom. 3:31 Do we then nullify the *Law* through faith?
May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.”

(The Greek verb histēmi (i[sthmi) is translated “established” in the NASU, but it fully means “to uphold or sustain the authority or force of any thing” (Thayer). The RSV and NIV actually render it as “uphold.”)

[Michael Neubaum]

xulon said:

It is a setting aside of the whole law because of the weakness of the flesh to keep it.
Michael Neubaum said:

There is a setting aside of commandments that were weak and unprofitable.

Na, can’t agree because there are many texts that don’t support that the law was done away with, merely that it changed by setting aside elements that were ceremonial in nature, such as sin offerings.

“Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Rom 3:29

Hebrews still supports that Yahweh writes His law in our inwards part under the NC.

[Ann Wilson]

xulon:

I have not yet reviewed all the messages/blogs that deal with the law, I will when I have more time, but please answer my question. Much of what you have included in the blog you provided the link to are verses that contain glosses/ interpolations into the texts. Thats shaky ground upon which to build one's doctrine and place one's eternal life especially since the are in opposition to the what the Prophets and our Messiah and taught while on earth.

So my question is, what law was there the people thought was NULLIFIED, but Paul said was not but was UPHELD, In Roman 3:31? This was obviously NOT the "Law of Christ".

The "Law of Christ" was none other than His Father's commandments/Torah, which HE told us that He kept and taught others to do so as well.

He warned other NOT to teach others break them. Matt. 5:19.

There is a copy of those covenantal laws in the "Ark of the Covenant" that is in Heaven. Rev. 11:19. Will the laws you keep be identical to the law contained therein? Or did someone sneak up into heaven enter the ark, and take out the original covenant and change the laws theron and put the new tablets back in their place?

I'll repeat a question I posed in another message.

Just how did Messiah "set aside" "abolish" or "fulfill" the laws against INCEST in Leviticus?

Was that one of the laws "against us" or "for our good"?