Promise-Law Connection

Blik · Jul 31, 2021

Thanks for trying to help, but it simply escapes me into a senior moment.

It seems to me the Jewish scholars are often wise. They are simply blind to the means of salvation. God took the sacrificial system from them when Christ became the reality, their temple is gone. But they know the law and have faith in it. When I learned they achieved much more than Christians in this life I read five books explaining why. They all pointed to conmandmends they seriously try to incorporate in their daily life. It is like us knowing of the power of gravity and using that power in our life, They know the power of God's guidance in living in this world and use it. They miss eternal life.

JaumeJ · Jul 31, 2021

randyk said:

The point he made was that *he* came to fulfill the Law--not us. He only expected Israel to keep his every command under the Law as long as they remained under that covenant. Once he fulfilled that covenant, he expected his every command to be kept under his new covenant.

He didn't destroy the Law. However, Israel failed their part of the covenant agreement. The covenant of Law was broken at the cross--not by Jesus but by Israel, who rejected him.

However, he had come to keep the Law in a different way than Israel obeyed the Law. The Law was given to be obeyed by sinful Israel. But Jesus was not sinful. Therefore, he was not under mandate to obey the Law as a sinner. Rather, he was under mandate to fulfill the Law as redeemer of those who had failed under the Law.

This was the fulfillment of the Law, redeeming Israel from under a Law that couldn't save them. We can argue that point if you like?

Until I understand these words you have posted from Jesus, I will continue believing what He has made simple.

JaumeJ · Jul 31, 2021

randyk said:

The point he made was that *he* came to fulfill the Law--not us. He only expected Israel to keep his every command under the Law as long as they remained under that covenant. Once he fulfilled that covenant, he expected his every command to be kept under his new covenant.

He didn't destroy the Law. However, Israel failed their part of the covenant agreement. The covenant of Law was broken at the cross--not by Jesus but by Israel, who rejected him.

However, he had come to keep the Law in a different way than Israel obeyed the Law. The Law was given to be obeyed by sinful Israel. But Jesus was not sinful. Therefore, he was not under mandate to obey the Law as a sinner. Rather, he was under mandate to fulfill the Law as redeemer of those who had failed under the Law.

This was the fulfillment of the Law, redeeming Israel from under a Law that couldn't save them. We can argue that point if you like?

Forgive this if it is duplicated.

Until I understand the words you have posted from Jesus, I will continue to believe what He has made simple to understand.

randyk · Jul 31, 2021

JaumeJ said:

You're insisting that you have the right to accept a false understanding of Jesus' words? We are only to believe what Jesus actually said, based on what he really said--not on a false understanding of it! If we are to understand what he meant, we need to know whom he was speaking it, to whom his words applied, in what time period they applied, and what his words mean in context. We are not allowed to accept his words *out of context!*

You should believe only what you understand--not what the words *sound like.* Appearances can be deceiving.

What I gave you was the context for Jesus' words. Since they were given in an OT context, they may not apply in the same way in the NT context, where we live today. Those who lived under the Law were told to remain obedient under the Law--at least as long as the Law applied. Since we are not under the Law today, we were not being told to live under the Law today.

We are not under the Law today because the Law was a contract that Israel broke. Israel had broken the Law before, but now they broke the Law permanently. It was like divorcing God. If they were to remain married to God they would have to find it under a brand new contract. We call this New Contract the "New Covenant."

Jesus was telling Jews to live under the Law because they were under the Law exclusively. The Law did not apply to non-Jews unless they lived in Israel, and even then, not all of the Law applied to them. This was a *Jewish Law!*

Jesus saw the *fulfillment* of the Law applied only to himself--not to the Jewish People. They were to *obey* the Law--not *fulfill* the Law. Only Jesus could do the work of redemption. Israel was excluded, by sin, from doing any work of redemption. They were excluded, by not being God, from doing the work of redemption.

You need to understand what you read before choosing to believe those words. Otherwise, you are following the "flesh," wanting to believe words out of some partisan attitude or out of some sectarian concern.

randyk · Jul 31, 2021

Blik said:

Jesus told his followers to listen to the Jewish scholars to some extent, but certainly not in all occasions! Those very scholars were discouraging Jews from following Jesus! And so, they had to distort Scriptures that foretold of Jesus.

The Jewish leaders often spoke of divine morality. But they did not practice that morality themselves. They appeared righteous, but inwardly, were full of murder. They wanted to destroy Jesus and his followers. Obviously, some of their teachings were to be rejected as artificial, or hollow, and even distorted.

These scholars had little sense of inward spirituality, which made their teachings dangerous. It is one thing to understand the sense of a Scripture, and another, to benefit from teaching that reveals an inward spirituality. Without the inward spirituality, the teaching is external and even dangerous, because it is misleading and perhaps even wrong.

Yes, the temple, the priesthood, and the sacrifices are gone. But these cardinal elements of the Law required faith to be properly understood and taught about. Teaching about the mechanics of operating under the Law was not the central purpose of the Law. Faith was to be involved in every aspect of the Law--it just wasn't faith that brought justification yet in history--that could only come after Christ had redeemed mankind.

So there is a pre-justification faith, and a post-justification faith. One was genuine and pleased God, looking forward to justification. And the other brought justification. Faith in the OT would eventually be saved. And faith in the NT is salvation.

So when you talk about the Law, you err if you try to strip the Law of faith. They were to operate together--it just wasn't faith unto salvation yet.

This is a terrible statement that you made: "When I learned they achieved much more than Christians in this life I read five books explaining why."

Matt 11.11 Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

SophieT · Jul 31, 2021

randyk said:

exactly what you say you have previously come across

the confusion with law and the New Testament is very much alive and kicking with some folks around here

randyk · Jul 31, 2021

SophieT said:

Thanks, it's one of my favorite subjects. I've wanted to understand Paul's theology and the plan of God in history for many years. I think I have a fairly good grasp now, though I'm still working on it. Being under the Law was not one of Paul's interests, unless it was to model good citizenship in a non-Christian country.

The practice of the Law was never meant to lead to eternal salvation. It was only ever meant to keep Israel in good relations with the Lord. Now that salvation has come, we don't need the Law to stay in good relations with the Lord. We only need to follow the commandments of Christ, which is focused on loving God and mankind.

eternally-gratefull · Jul 31, 2021

JaumeJ said:

That he fulfilled it

because we can’t.

SophieT · Jul 31, 2021

randyk said:

right

when people go on and on about the law, I like to say that the 'new' commandments of Jesus are actually the law in summation (the 10)

the 10 commandments are all about how to treat others, the first two keep God as first

as it is, Jesus fulfilled the law on our behalf so we could be declared righteous before God

Blik · Jul 31, 2021

randyk said:

I believe you completely misunderstand how God related to the people in the old testament. There is no change in God between the testaments. It is an eternal principle always the same that it is only grace that gives salvation. Obedience has never, ever produced grace from the Lord. If anyone was under the law for grace they would have to be perfect and man has never been perfect. In the old testament they were under grace not law for salvation. That grace came with repentance and blood given on the altar, symbolized by the blood of animals.

If you post is to tell us that obedience was necessary for salvation in the old testament you are misrepresenting our holy eternal God.

randyk · Jul 31, 2021

SophieT said:

I agree. I think God made it easy for us to understand, regardless of the fact Israel was given 613 laws in advance. Everything is summed up in Christ, the temple, the priesthood, the sacrifice. Just about covers it all. And then to reduce the morality of the Law down to 2 commandments from Christ, to love God above all and to love others with a pure heart--you can't beat that for simplicity. Why complicate it?

randyk · Jul 31, 2021

Blik said:

You're mixing OT and NT concepts of grace. Grace is what is bestowed upon people by God without they're deserving it, largely when they are acting to please God. OT grace brought forgiveness, but not salvation. NT grace brought salvation.

OT grace did *not* bring salvation, since salvation only comes after Christ produced redemption at the cross. To say that grace brought salvation before Christ did this, while still in the OT era, is in error, and diminishes the necessity of Christian redemption.

Grace was indeed active under the Law, if you define "grace" according to the Bible. It is another word for God's "kindness." God's kindness indeed extended, temporarily, through the Law. That was the whole reason that animal sacrifices were provided for, to bring a measure of forgiveness to Israel when they failed. They didn't deserve mercy, but God offered it anyway. And even when Israel failed the entire Law, God provided mercy to restore Israel after their captivities.

I don't know what you mean by saying people under the Law had to be perfect to experience God's love and kindness? David sinned with Bathsheba, and still obtained kindness from the Lord. Solomon failed in some ways, and yet God's kindness was never fully taken from him. He retained the Southern Kingdom of Judah. These men did not need to be perfect to obtain grace, or kindness, or forgiveness.

You seem only to be talking about the need of perfection to obtain a place in heaven, which is salvation. In NT terms, we find our place in heaven, or salvation, through Christ's perfection, and not through our own. We obtain grace from Christ, which is salvation. This is only in the NT era.

I don't know what you mean that OT saints were under grace, not Law, for salvation? There was *no* salvation in the OT era. They only had the hope and the faith necessary to obtain salvation *after* Christ's redemption at the cross. They certainly were under the Law and experienced a measure of grace under the Law. But they did not experience Christian salvation!

Their faith made them eligible for Christian salvation, but did not experience salvation until after Christ came and died for their sins. All redemption under the Law was temporary, awaiting final validation at the cross. I believe your words are not being used correctly, leading to misleading statements.

Blik · Jul 31, 2021

randyk said:

Your interpretation of scripture would mean that God is not eternal, but God changed his character when Christ came. Scripture says you are wrong about that, it tells us God in one, the same always, he is eternal. God did not divide his words to us between the old and new testament, it was man that did that. It is the very same God who speaks to us in both testaments with the same message. The only difference, the difference we are told is different, is the way God speaks to us in these testaments. In the old testament God gave His messages to us using fleshly language, using what is understood literally to symbolize the spiritual message like cutting skin as a sign they were an apart people.

In the new testament God gives the very same message for God is eternal with eternal ways, but that message is given directly into our hearts. Pleas, please study the scriptures telling us of this change so well explained in Jeremiah. It is not a message of a change in God or anything changed EXCEPT the change in how it is presented.

eternally-gratefull · Jul 31, 2021

randyk said:

For those like Blik who can. OT let go of the law. it’s the most complicated thing ever.

love fulfills the law because it is outward focused, the law focuses on self. By practice the law causes sin to increase, not decrease, because your focused on self, how good a. I, what do I need to do,etc etc

Blik · Jul 31, 2021

eternally-gratefull said:

The law of the Lord is not OT or NT, it is eternal truth. If you decide to separate them you put on an immediate misunderstanding of law. God is eternal, not one God for before Christ and another God for after Christ. Christ was from the very beginning, haven't you read the gospel of John?

There is nothing about the truth that is complicated. The spiritual world operates by law and order, and love is at the core of every part of law. The physical world is created in the image of the spiritual world. It is simple.

randyk · Aug 1, 2021

Blik said:

Nothing I said indicated that God changed, unless you define "change" as taking action? God took action when He sent Christ to die for our sin. This was not a change in God's character. He planned from the beginning that in the event that man sinned He would died for them and give them a 2nd chance. You call that a "change in God's character?"

You have a weird gnostic view of the difference between the two testaments, and it wouldn't be new in history. You think the Law is carnal, and the Gospel is spiritual? This is Gnosticism, a form of Gnostic dualism.

Actually, God is the same in both testaments. Both the Law and the Gospel were spiritual. The temporary elements of the Law passed away, but what is eternal remains. That's why I saw the Old Covenant passed away, along with the Law, while what is eternal in God remains.

Faith remains, as well as righteousness, which comes by our obedience to God's word. Nothing's changed, brother. God has always been the same. But there is a before Christ and an after Christ's death. What was needed before Christ is no longer needed, because Christ has come and has completed our redemption. He's fully atoned for our sin. That's why there is no longer need to repeat rituals of atonement under the Law. Atonement is complete.

JaumeJ · Aug 1, 2021

JaumeJ said:

In a multitude of words, sin is not far away.

randyk · Aug 1, 2021

eternally-gratefull said:

Well some have taken Paul's negative statements about the Law and have obscured the positive elements of the Law. The Law was actually a spiritual thing, designed to aid in the operation of faith and obedience. It was temporary, yes, but it worked for a long time. It was meant to lead to that which would complete faith in Christ.

But what you say about the Law is true. No matter how much faith and obedience was involved, its purpose was to show that even the best saint sinned, and cannot, because of their sin nature, find eternal life. The Law confirmed the story of the Garden of Eden, that Man cannot achieve the Tree of Life because of his trespass against God's word.

So the Law was meant to show us that we all need a redeemer, Christ the Lord. None of that takes away form the good that the Law did.

And because of the negativity created by this unbalanced teaching of Paul, there is a counter-reaction by those who go overboard in reframing the Law as eternal, and even relevant to the NT life.

But we agree, this is wrong. The Law was good, but it could not bring salvation. As you say, we need to lay the Law aside, and recognize that all the law we will ever need resides in Christ. With Christ already come, who needs to go back to the Law, which was run by sinful priests?

Blik · Aug 1, 2021

randyk said:

I think we agree more than we disagree. I believe the law is, and always was spiritual. In the OT it was given in stone---meaning it was explained through fleshly acts given them to represent the spirit of the law. I agree the only change was in how the law was presented to us.

In our former posts, the disagreement seemed to center on that I saw Christ in the sacrificial system. It seems important to me to understand that it was only through blood that represented Christ's blood that they were preserved in sleep until Christ completed it at His crucifixion.

eternally-gratefull · Aug 1, 2021

Blik said:

The law was fulfilled in christ

it was the schoolmaster given for the purpose of leading us to Christ

it was Gods means of bringing a man or woman to their knees like the tax collector and call out for Gods mercy. Because they understood the only means of redemption and atonement was the lamb of God.

after it has fulfilled that purpose. we are no longer under the tutor

i pray on day it leads you to Christ, so you can learn the law of love and learn true spiritual growth.

Promise-Law Connection

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

SophieT

Guest

Well-known member

eternally-gratefull

Guest

SophieT

Guest

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

eternally-gratefull

Guest

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

eternally-gratefull

Guest