PDA

View Full Version : Questions about Galatians



Jaxb
06-26-2017, 12:19 PM
Galatians 3:19-25 states, "Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor."

What does "kept in custody under the law" mean?

The Law is described as a tutor that leads us to Christ. The Law shows that we are sinners and that we need to be saved from sin. What does it mean to say that "But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor"?

Galatians 4:21 says, " Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?" What is meant by the phrase, "under law"?

mikewhitney
06-26-2017, 02:45 PM
The passage appears to place the Galatians within the same context that Jews were under. This was possible since the Galatians had joined a Messianic sect of Judaism.

The custody and guardianship was over the Jews in order to preserve them as a people ... avoiding judgment ... until Christ came. It seems that they would have been in a worse situation (by the first century) without the law.

In verse 24, the guardian was in place until Christ came. This indicates that the law had no more relevance after the time of Christ. The people were preserved until Christ and now they could accept Christ. The message for the Galatians then was to drop their interest in doing things of the law.


The Law is described as a tutor that leads us to Christ.
The better translation (from ESV9) is "So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith."
The idea that one is led to Christ by the law doesn't fit the context very well. Instead, the passage emphasizes the temporal nature of the law's preservation of the people until Christ


The Law shows that we are sinners and that we need to be saved from sin.
This point really doesn't reflect the gist of the passage.



Galatians 4:21 says, " Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?" What is meant by the phrase, "under law"?
The same meaning would be "obligated to the law" or "subject to judgment or consequences" of the Jewish laws.

Mosaic laws were written only to apply to the Israel people (or those who joined these people). But gentiles in Galatia were seeking to become obligated to those laws, based on the preaching of infiltrators.

Jaxb
06-26-2017, 08:10 PM
The passage appears to place the Galatians within the same context that Jews were under. This was possible since the Galatians had joined a Messianic sect of Judaism.

The custody and guardianship was over the Jews in order to preserve them as a people ... avoiding judgment ... until Christ came. It seems that they would have been in a worse situation (by the first century) without the law.

In verse 24, the guardian was in place until Christ came. This indicates that the law had no more relevance after the time of Christ. The people were preserved until Christ and now they could accept Christ. The message for the Galatians then was to drop their interest in doing things of the law.


The better translation (from ESV9) is "So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith."
The idea that one is led to Christ by the law doesn't fit the context very well. Instead, the passage emphasizes the temporal nature of the law's preservation of the people until Christ


This point really doesn't reflect the gist of the passage.


The same meaning would be "obligated to the law" or "subject to judgment or consequences" of the Jewish laws.

Mosaic laws were written only to apply to the Israel people (or those who joined these people). But gentiles in Galatia were seeking to become obligated to those laws, based on the preaching of infiltrators.

What do you think of the idea that the Mosaic Law is divided into three parts (moral, ceremonial, and judicial) and that only the moral part applies to people today?

What is meant by Matthew 5:17 which says that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them?

NorrinRadd
06-27-2017, 12:55 AM
What do you think of the idea that the Mosaic Law is divided into three parts (moral, ceremonial, and judicial) and that only the moral part applies to people today?

I think it's an idea external to Scripture, invented by people who still want to cling to at least part of the Obsolete Covenant.

The clear (to me, at least) implication of Eph. 2, Col. 2, Gal. 3, and the book of Hebrews is that the entirety of the Obsolete Covenant has been replaced, and the Law that was part and parcel of that Covenant -- every ordinance, decree, and Commandment -- has been cancelled, abolished, nailed to the Cross, hung on the Tree. The only Commandment that has been universally and permanently reaffirmed is "Love your neighbor as yourself," which in practical terms amounts to "Treat others as you wish others to treat you."



What is meant by Matthew 5:17 which says that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them?

Well, it must not have meant that the Law would perpetually remain in effect. Jesus Himself effectively abolished at least parts of it while He was still on earth prior to the Crucifixion. In Mark 7, He voided the food laws. In Luke's account of the Last Supper, He announced the initiation of the New Covenant, and the book of Hebrews makes clear that the law went away when the Obsolete Covenant did.

Just Passing Through
06-27-2017, 06:12 AM
What does "kept in custody under the law" mean?

The Law is described as a tutor that leads us to Christ. The Law shows that we are sinners and that we need to be saved from sin. What does it mean to say that "But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor"?

The Greek word for “tutor” is a pedagogue, which was a slave who was put in charge of a household’s children. He was a guardian, he was in charge of discipline, and he was responsible to see to their education (though he might not teach them himself but simply make sure they get to school and do their lessons).
The OT law gave Israel a disciplined education. Sacrifices taught them about the cost of sin. Cleanliness laws taught about the kinds of separation, both as consequences of sin (separated from God and from perfect fellowship with others), and as the believer’s need to preserve himself separate from sin. Sabbath laws taught them about spiritual rest.
As long as God’s people were children, before the maturity of the cross, they were under this pedagogue’s custody (both for protection and for discipline).
Galatians was written for a congregation plagued by Judaizers who claimed Christians had to both believe in Christ and keep all those old laws. They saw a nonexistent need to be under the law, and an advantage (it fed one’s pride, making him feel better and more righteous than those who didn’t live up to the same high standard he had set for himself).


The idea that one is led to Christ by the law doesn't fit the context very well. Instead, the passage emphasizes the temporal nature of the law's preservation of the people until Christ.

One is “led to Christ,” not in the sense that the law makes one a believer, but in the sense that Old Testament worship, sabbath, cleanliness and dietary laws, etc, pointed them toward the one who was foreshadowed, and they were led “until” Christ, so that leading “to Christ” meant it would no longer lead them once he came.




What do you think of the idea that the Mosaic Law is divided into three parts (moral, ceremonial, and judicial) and that only the moral part applies to people today?
I think it's an idea external to Scripture, invented by people who still want to cling to at least part of the Obsolete Covenant.

The clear (to me, at least) implication of Eph. 2, Col. 2, Gal. 3, and the book of Hebrews is that the entirety of the Obsolete Covenant has been replaced, and the Law that was part and parcel of that Covenant -- every ordinance, decree, and Commandment -- has been cancelled, abolished, nailed to the Cross, hung on the Tree. The only Commandment that has been universally and permanently reaffirmed is "Love your neighbor as yourself," which in practical terms amounts to "Treat others as you wish others to treat you."

The three part division is not about clinging to part of the obsolete covenant. It simply points to the fact that there are different kinds of laws. Some OT laws express eternal divine standards of right and wrong. They are the moral law. They existed before Moses, and they are repeated in the NT (epitomized in the command to love God above all things and love your neighbor as yourself, but also cited individually: do not kill, do not steal, avoid sexual immorality...). Some laws taught people how to worship. The worship laws pointed forward to Christ and would be replaced by new ways to worship God (with a spiritual focus, without the legal aspect). So they were not eternal. Finally, any laws that prescribe a specific punishment were civil laws. The action itself might be moral, ceremonial, or of a civic nature, but this division in particular establishes the official punishment, which every civil government that is not a theocracy is free to change.

Even the eternal moral law is no longer a “law” for the Christian, because part of the definition of a law is a command that bears the threat of punishment for disobedience (or reward for obedience). We are under grace, not law in that sense. We still have commands, and right and wrong are still right and wrong, but they are not tied to our relationship with God in the same way as in the OT or to our salvation, since they were all fulfilled by Christ for our sake.


What is meant by Matthew 5:17 which says that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them?

Jesus was always so gentle and forgiving, that Pharisees would accuse him of saying, “Oh, forget about the law, it doesn’t matter. Forget about sin. Forget about judgment. I can just cancel the law and all that stuff disappears.” (And like the Judaizers, they didn’t want the law canceled in any sense, since it was a source of their pride. ) He didn’t cancel it, he fulfilled it by keeping the law perfectly and by dying to give us the full righteousness we couldn’t attain by our own efforts to keep it.

tabibito
06-27-2017, 06:13 AM
[quote]What does "kept in custody under the law" mean?

The Law is described as a tutor that leads us to Christ. The Law shows that we are sinners and that we need to be saved from sin. What does it mean to say that "But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor"? The word rendered as "tutor" is untranslatable in English. It signifies a person appointed to act as the custodian (with the same signification as "custody" as used of custody battles in divorce) of a child, and who was charged with making sure that the child got delivered safely to the tutor. At that time, the teaching of the child is taken in hand by the better qualified teacher.


Galatians 4:21 says, " Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?" What is meant by the phrase, "under law"? "subject to" the law.

Obsidian
06-27-2017, 09:46 AM
The only Commandment that has been universally and permanently reaffirmed is "Love your neighbor as yourself," which in practical terms amounts to "Treat others as you wish others to treat you."

It is specifically stated (on multiple occasions) that "Love your neighbor as yourself" means obeying the moral laws.

Romans 13:15
For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

mikewhitney
06-27-2017, 10:47 AM
What do you think of the idea that the Mosaic Law is divided into three parts (moral, ceremonial, and judicial) and that only the moral part applies to people today?

What is meant by Matthew 5:17 which says that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them?

These points do not negate the fact that the Jewish laws were not applicable to Christians.

An interesting aspect of Matt 5:17 is that Jesus appears to have anticipated being accused for abolishing the Jewish laws -- so there in reality an end to the Law which came through Jesus' fulfillment of the Law. This fulfillment of the Law was accomplished through the following: 1) Jesus living a perfect life and fulfilling the righteous demand of the law and 2) his fulfillment of the prophetic element of the Law regarding the coming of the Messiah.

Paul mentions that laws are not written for the righteous but for the unrighteous. This doesn't mean that Christians are simply going to create havoc -- this would be against their nature -- and if someone really gets out of hand -- Paul recommends to admonish them from the Old Testament. Nor does this lack of Christian law mean that Christians are going to go out and steal from people or kill people; these Christians live within nations where there are laws to prohibit (and punish) such violations.

Despite the lack of Christian obligation to the Mosaic Law, such Law reflected God's wisdom and gave us a sense of fairness and justice which is useful for us to know.

I agree with a lot of what NorrinRadd and Just Passing Through elaborated on.

mikewhitney
06-27-2017, 11:32 AM
It is specifically stated (on multiple occasions) that "Love your neighbor as yourself" means obeying the moral laws.

Romans 13:15
For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Basically, by listing the Decalogue, Paul was promoting a sense that Jewish Laws (to those who were interested in such laws) were fulfilled inasmuch as we show love to one another. He was not specifically saying that someone must have the Decalogue's second tablet memorized in order to show love toward neighbors. (And why exclude honoring of Mother and Father, if the Decalogue was being reinstated?)

Obsidian
06-27-2017, 02:23 PM
He explicitly says, "if there be any other commandment," then it is summarized by the phrase, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Hence, he doesn't have to list all the commandments. The point is that all the non-ceremonial laws are something that Jesus wants us to follow because they all fall under the category of love for neighbor. In Hebrews 9, it specifically describes the obsolete laws as being matters of food and drink, washings, etc. The moral laws are part of the law of Christ.

1 Corinthians 9:21
[T]o them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

James 2:12
So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

mikewhitney
06-27-2017, 05:03 PM
He explicitly says, "if there be any other commandment," then it is summarized by the phrase, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Hence, he doesn't have to list all the commandments. The point is that all the non-ceremonial laws are something that Jesus wants us to follow because they all fall under the category of love for neighbor. In Hebrews 9, it specifically describes the obsolete laws as being matters of food and drink, washings, etc. The moral laws are part of the law of Christ.

I am just responding for completeness' sake.
Paul seems to say in Rom 13:9 that if they want to say "shouldn't we adhere to this or that commandment" , his response is that "anything that is needed is just covered by 'love your neighbor as yourself.' Paul goes to great extents not to encumber people with Jewish Covenantal laws.




1 Corinthians 9:21
[T]o them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

James 2:12
So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

These verses just emphasize that we are freed from Jewish laws to live under the law of liberty (an obligation to love one another without having the Jewish laws) . This law of liberty and law of Christ are to love one another. These don't speak of any reinstatement of the OT Jewish laws into the New.

Obsidian
06-27-2017, 07:27 PM
So stealing constituted a lack of love before, but now it's up to us to decide whether stealing is loving? Is that what you are saying?

tabibito
06-27-2017, 11:43 PM
I am just responding for completeness' sake.
Paul seems to say in Rom 13:9 that if they want to say "shouldn't we adhere to this or that commandment" , his response is that "anything that is needed is just covered by 'love your neighbor as yourself.' Paul goes to great extents not to encumber people with Jewish Covenantal laws.



These verses just emphasize that we are freed from Jewish laws to live under the law of liberty (an obligation to love one another without having the Jewish laws) . This law of liberty and law of Christ are to love one another. These don't speak of any reinstatement of the OT Jewish laws into the New.

True enough. The old law was made obsolete - but there is a new law which has its own provisions. It is like moving from (say) America to Canada. Murder and such are violations of the law in both, but definitions and penalties aren't quite the same.
In Biblical terms, the old law permitted divorce at will - the new law doesn't. The old law had a definition for murder which is not the same as the definition for murder under the new law. etc and so forth.
The Old Law, having been fulfilled, no longer is in force.

mikewhitney
06-28-2017, 10:32 AM
So stealing constituted a lack of love before, but now it's up to us to decide whether stealing is loving? Is that what you are saying?

If you are stealing from your neighbor, you are a bit messed up from a Christian standpoint. But does it take a Jewish written law to reveal hat to you?

If you learn from the scripture something new, like it is wrong to steal, that is okay. But that doesn't make you obligated to the Mosaic Law. I'm just addressing the apparent use of the Decalogue in Romans 13 -- not trying to excuse misbehavior.

mikewhitney
06-28-2017, 10:40 AM
True enough. The old law was made obsolete - but there is a new law which has its own provisions. It is like moving from (say) America to Canada. Murder and such are violations of the law in both, but definitions and penalties aren't quite the same.
In Biblical terms, the old law permitted divorce at will - the new law doesn't. The old law had a definition for murder which is not the same as the definition for murder under the new law. etc and so forth.
The Old Law, having been fulfilled, no longer is in force.

Discussion of ideas of the Law of Liberty or Law of Christ (both the same thing, it seems) would require a different thread. Your example seems to come from Matt 5-7. This discussion also has been heading to the point where it would require examination what people's concept of law is. Are Christians wanting to be under a written code which results in the loss of justification before God or are they wanting just a guide into the best way to live?

tabibito
06-28-2017, 10:46 AM
If you are stealing from your neighbor, you are a bit messed up from a Christian standpoint. But does it take a Jewish written law to reveal hat to you?

If you learn from the scripture something new, like it is wrong to steal, that is okay. But that doesn't make you obligated to the Mosaic Law. I'm just addressing the apparent use of the Decalogue in Romans 13 -- not trying to excuse misbehavior.

Actual, not apparent. There's a story about one Hillel (1st Century BC)

when asked by a prospective convert to Judaism to teach him the whole while he stood on one leg, replied: “That which is hateful unto you do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole of the Torah, The rest is commentary. Go forth and study.”

Romans is showing that even the Old Testament had what we would call "the spirit of the law" which extended beyond "the letter of the law, and therefore remains useful for teaching and training in righteousness. Relevant points bolded.

8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.

mikewhitney
06-28-2017, 12:01 PM
Actual, not apparent
I used an ambiguous sense of 'use.' It would have been better to speak of Paul's apparent purpose for referring to the Decalogue. His approach seems to be that of mentioning many commandments in order to say that all you really have to focus on is "lover your neighbor as yourself." To interpret the purpose differently, we would have to suggest that Paul had used unrelated commandments for the purpose of promoting the paying of tribute/taxes.



Romans is showing that even the Old Testament had what we would call "the spirit of the law" which extended beyond "the letter of the law, and therefore remains useful for teaching and training in righteousness. Relevant points bolded.

8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.

The problem I see with such summary of Rom 13:9-10 is that Paul was essentially doing all he could do to tell people to behave -- yet at the same time he was pretty much avoiding anything that might tempt them to follow Jewish laws. Paul was fine with the gentiles doing the summarized purpose of the law but he was careful not to have them become beholden to the letter of the law. Maybe we have agreement on this.

The problem with the Jewish laws was that the people became focused on fine detailed legal points (either to obey them or to avoid obeying requirements --while still feeling justified) rather than on simple obedience toward God. It seems that Paul wished to avoid triggering this behavior among gentiles.

Obsidian
06-28-2017, 03:42 PM
If you are stealing from your neighbor, you are a bit messed up from a Christian standpoint. But does it take a Jewish written law to reveal hat to you?

If you learn from the scripture something new, like it is wrong to steal, that is okay. But that doesn't make you obligated to the Mosaic Law. I'm just addressing the apparent use of the Decalogue in Romans 13 -- not trying to excuse misbehavior.

Wrong. We know that it was unloving back then, so we know it is unloving now. Stop being so wishy-washy.

mikewhitney
06-28-2017, 03:56 PM
Wrong. We know that it was unloving back then, so we know it is unloving now. Stop being so wishy-washy.

sorry. i don't understand what you are saying. Like I had posted earlier, we may not be on the same track as to the meaning of the Jewish law in a Christian context. Are you saying that God is deciding whether you are justified before him based on whether you follow the Jewish laws? Maybe you are saying that the Jewish laws merely provide a guideline how we should act. If you are Lutheran you may simply be saying that the Mosaic Law simply reminds us of our sin and the need to rely on God's grace.

Obsidian
06-28-2017, 08:19 PM
Are you saying that God is deciding whether you are justified before him based on whether you follow the Jewish laws?

Except for the instance of Jesus, God has never decided that people are justified on the basis of following the Jewish laws.


Maybe you are saying that the Jewish laws merely provide a guideline how we should act.

The moral laws, yes.


If you are Lutheran you may simply be saying that the Mosaic Law simply reminds us of our sin and the need to rely on God's grace.

The moral laws, yes.

If God had the command "Love your neighbor" in the OT, and then he expounded numerous different ways that your neighbor should be loved, and then the apostles (after the crucifixion) explicitly repeat the command to "Love your neighbor" in the NT, then clearly all the moral laws are still in force for how we should behave. Further, Jesus often judges his own people with temporal judgments based on whether they are following said laws. That is what James 2, which I quoted above, is talking about.

NorrinRadd
07-08-2017, 03:54 AM
I'll probably end up reiterating things from some other posters in the thread, mainly, I think, "mikewhitney."


It is specifically stated (on multiple occasions) that "Love your neighbor as yourself" means obeying the moral laws.

Romans 13:15
For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

First, I don't see a verse 15 in Rom. 13 in any translation I have handy.

More pertinently, ISTM that your approach is bass-ackwards. The context of Rom. 13, esp. vv. 8-10, clearly (to me) indicates something along the lines of, "If you just follow Lev. 19:18, you don't need to be concerned with any of the rest of the Law."

This is also the clear (to me) implication of Gal. 5:14.

Contrary to your assertion, I am not aware of any of the "multiple" places where we are "specifically" told that "Love your neighbor" means adhering to the "moral laws." I'm aware of a *few* places in 1 John that could *imply* that -- places where he says that "love" means "keeping His commandments"; there are at least as many that give the reverse implication, viz. that love itself is THE commandment.


He explicitly says, "if there be any other commandment," then it is summarized by the phrase, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Hence, he doesn't have to list all the commandments. The point is that all the non-ceremonial laws are something that Jesus wants us to follow because they all fall under the category of love for neighbor. In Hebrews 9, it specifically describes the obsolete laws as being matters of food and drink, washings, etc. The moral laws are part of the law of Christ.

I cannot but see that the divisions among moral, ceremonial, and civil are inventions of men, not the clear teaching of Scripture itself.



1 Corinthians 9:21
[T]o them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

James 2:12
So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

The context seems (to me) to indicate that the "law of liberty" may be the "Royal Law," "Love your neighbor as yourself" in v. 8. As with the Pauline examples, I see James saying that in following the Royal Law of Lev. 19:18, one need not concern himself with the specific laws of the Decalogue.

Paul explicitly said that "Love your neighbor as yourself" fulfills the entirety of the Law, and that love does no harm to a neighbor. In the Synoptics, Jesus said that all the Law and Prophets depended on "Love the LORD with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and your neighbor as yourself." In Matthew, He said that the essence of the entire Law and Prophets is "Treat others as you wish others to treat you." That wording is reminiscent of Paul in Rom. 13, where he says that love does no harm to a neighbor. Even apart from that, I can think of no better way of expressing "Love your neighbor as yourself" in *practical* terms.

37818
07-08-2017, 06:23 AM
The purpose of the Law was to show we are in need of salvation. Like a mirror where we can see ourselves and see we have dirt on our face.

Since we are all sinners, all the law can do is condemn. The law also pictured the promised solution (Hebrews 10:1; Colossians 2:16-17).

1 Timothy 1:9,
. . . Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust. . . .

Also see Romans 3:19; James 2:10; Deuteronomy 27:26.

Jaxb
07-09-2017, 09:41 PM
True enough. The old law was made obsolete - but there is a new law which has its own provisions. It is like moving from (say) America to Canada. Murder and such are violations of the law in both, but definitions and penalties aren't quite the same.
In Biblical terms, the old law permitted divorce at will - the new law doesn't. The old law had a definition for murder which is not the same as the definition for murder under the new law. etc and so forth.
The Old Law, having been fulfilled, no longer is in force.

I agree that the old law was made obsolete. The doing away with the Old Covenant implies doing away with the old law.

Before the Law of Moses came into existence, certain things were morally wrong. Cain killed Abel and this was wrong. People were doing wicked things during the time of Noah, which is why God brought the flood upon the earth. Does this imply that there was some other law before the Law of Moses? Is this law applicable to us today?

tabibito
07-10-2017, 03:20 AM
It is a simple matter of the Old Law having been fulfilled, there is no requirement to continue in the provisions of that law. To paraphrase the analogy in Hebrews - once the obligations imposed under the terms of a mortgage have been fulfilled (the mortgage being paid out) there is no longer an obligation to continue paying the mortgage. To continue and expand on that analogy, however, the Old Mortgage hasn't been paid out by the original mortgagee, but by someone else to whom the original mortgagee is now indebted, with a new and different kind of contract in place. The New Contract (testament) needs to be checked for whatever provisions may apply.

NorrinRadd
08-16-2017, 09:44 PM
It is a simple matter of the Old Law having been fulfilled, there is no requirement to continue in the provisions of that law. To paraphrase the analogy in Hebrews - once the obligations imposed under the terms of a mortgage have been fulfilled (the mortgage being paid out) there is no longer an obligation to continue paying the mortgage. To continue and expand on that analogy, however, the Old Mortgage hasn't been paid out by the original mortgagee, but by someone else to whom the original mortgagee is now indebted, with a new and different kind of contract in place. The New Contract (testament) needs to be checked for whatever provisions may apply.

However, we should be cautious of reading any of those provisions as new "laws" to which we are obliged.

tabibito
08-16-2017, 11:16 PM
However, we should be cautious of reading any of those provisions as new "laws" to which we are obliged.

"Laws" or "commands," if the latter be preferred, do apply methinks.

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who keeps saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will get into the kingdom from heaven, but only the person who keeps doing the will of my Father in heaven.
Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you... [Jesus]

Acts 26:20 Instead, I first told the people in Damascus and Jerusalem, then all the people in Judea—and after that the gentiles—to repent, turn to God, and perform deeds that are consistent with such repentance. [Paul]

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them

James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. ... 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

NorrinRadd
08-17-2017, 02:18 AM
"Laws" or "commands," if the latter be preferred, do apply methinks.

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who keeps saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will get into the kingdom from heaven, but only the person who keeps doing the will of my Father in heaven.
Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you... [Jesus]

Which Jesus should we follow -- this one, or the one who in John 6 taught that in order to do the work of God and inherit eternal life, the only "work" necessary was faith/belief in Him?



Acts 26:20 Instead, I first told the people in Damascus and Jerusalem, then all the people in Judea—and after that the gentiles—to repent, turn to God, and perform deeds that are consistent with such repentance. [Paul]

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them

Which Paul should we believe -- the one quoted here, or the one who taught in Romans and Galatians -- and in fact in the previous two verses in Ephesians -- that it is faith, not works, that saves us; and in Gal. 3 that we complete and perfect our walk the way it began -- by faith and the Spirit; and perhaps most pertinently, taught us in 2 Cor. 3 that "the letter kills"?



James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. ... 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Do we believe James rather than his brother Jesus as quoted by John in John 6? Do we believe James rather than Paul, who just as explicitly -- and repeatedly -- said that in fact we *are* saved by faith and not works? Or do we, seeing v. 18, perceive James to be saying that works *demonstrate* faith that saves, as opposed to being rules we must follow in order to achieve salvation?

I frankly find Scripture inconsistent and ambiguous. I choose the way of grace and liberty, and so the only guideline I make a conscious effort to follow is "Treat others as you wish others to treat you." And even then, I don't understand it as something I "must" do in order to hang on to salvation.

Bibleuser
12-12-2017, 04:14 AM
As the Mosaic Law was to lead the Jews to Jesus and thus when he came the Law was not longer needed as Jesus would take over leading in the worship of God so the Law of the Jews was no longer of any use to worship God, it was ended.-Rom. 10:4
BU