The Torah is Still Binding and We Must Obey It

[Soyeong]

Romans 10:4
“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”

What exactly do you think this means? If we can be righteous without the law what is the point in following it?

The Hebrew word "yada" refers to intimate relational knowledge gained through experience, such as in Genesis 4:1, Adam knew (yada) Eve, she conceived, and gave birth to Cain. The Bible begins and ends with the Tree of Life and everything in between is how to get back to it, or in other words, the goal of everything in the Bible is to teach us how to know (yada) God and Jesus by walking in God's way, which is eternal life (John 17:3).

God way is the way to express aspects of His character, such as righteousness and justice (Genesis 18:19). In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know Him, and in 1 Kings 2:1-3, God taught how to walk in His way through His law. In Jeremiah 9:3 and 9:6, they did not know (yada) God and refused to know Him because in 9:13, they had forsaken God's law, while in 9:24, those who know God know that He delights in practicing steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in all of the earth, so delighting in practicing these and other aspects of God's character in obedience to His law is the way to know Him, which is also the way to know Jesus, who is the exact image of God's character (Hebrews 1:3). In 1 John 2:4, those who say that they know Jesus, but don't obey his commands are liars, in 1 John 3:4-6, those who continue to practice sin in transgression of God's law have never seen or known him, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the law is to know God and Jesus, which is righteousness and eternal life.

The problem is that people can go through the motions of obeying God's law while missing its goal, which is what was happening in Romans 9:30-10:4, where they were pursuing the law as a means of establish their own righteousness as the result of their works rather than as the way to know Jesus through expressing aspects of His character. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that tithing was something that they ought to be doing while not neglecting weightier matters of the law of justice, mercy, and faithfulness, so again they were missing the goal of the law. In John 5:39-40, Jesus said that they searched the Scriptures because they thought that in them they will find eternal life, and they testify about him, yet they refuse to come to him that they might have life. Eternal life can be found in the Scriptures (Luke 10:25-28, Matthew 19:17), so they were correct to search for it there, but they needed to recognize that the goal of everything in Scripture is to teach us how to know Jesus through acting in accordance with His character. In Philippians 3:8, Paul was in the same situation, where he had been going through the motions of obeying God's law, but not while being focused on knowing Christ, so he had been missing the whole goal of the law, and that is what he counted as rubbish.

The way to believe in God is by believing that we ought to be doers of His character traits, it is by this faith that we attain the character traits of God, and attaining the character traits of God means becoming doers of them in obedience to God's instructions for how to do that found in His law.

1 John 5:17
“All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.”

Unrighteousness is still sin, so it's not like we can do whatever we want, but it seems like we do not have to follow "the law".

How else do you know what unrighteousness is apart from the instructions that God has given in His law for how to define what it is? The law reveals certain actions to be unrighteous, so it doesn't make sense to me to think that we need to refrain from doing what the law reveals to be unrighteous while also thinking that we do not need to follow the law.

 

[LeeLoving]

The Hebrew word "yada" refers to intimate relational knowledge gained through experience, such as in Genesis 4:1, Adam knew (yada) Eve, she conceived, and gave birth to Cain. The Bible begins and ends with the Tree of Life and everything in between is how to get back to it, or in other words, the goal of everything in the Bible is to teach us how to know (yada) God and Jesus by walking in God's way, which is eternal life (John 17:3).

God way is the way to express aspects of His character, such as righteousness and justice (Genesis 18:19). In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know Him, and in 1 Kings 2:1-3, God taught how to walk in His way through His law. In Jeremiah 9:3 and 9:6, they did not know (yada) God and refused to know Him because in 9:13, they had forsaken God's law, while in 9:24, those who know God know that He delights in practicing steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in all of the earth, so delighting in practicing these and other aspects of God's character in obedience to His law is the way to know Him, which is also the way to know Jesus, who is the exact image of God's character (Hebrews 1:3). In 1 John 2:4, those who say that they know Jesus, but don't obey his commands are liars, in 1 John 3:4-6, those who continue to practice sin in transgression of God's law have never seen or known him, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the law is to know God and Jesus, which is righteousness and eternal life.

The problem is that people can go through the motions of obeying God's law while missing its goal, which is what was happening in Romans 9:30-10:4, where they were pursuing the law as a means of establish their own righteousness as the result of their works rather than as the way to know Jesus through expressing aspects of His character. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that tithing was something that they ought to be doing while not neglecting weightier matters of the law of justice, mercy, and faithfulness, so again they were missing the goal of the law. In John 5:39-40, Jesus said that they searched the Scriptures because they thought that in them they will find eternal life, and they testify about him, yet they refuse to come to him that they might have life. Eternal life can be found in the Scriptures (Luke 10:25-28, Matthew 19:17), so they were correct to search for it there, but they needed to recognize that the goal of everything in Scripture is to teach us how to know Jesus through acting in accordance with His character. In Philippians 3:8, Paul was in the same situation, where he had been going through the motions of obeying God's law, but not while being focused on knowing Christ, so he had been missing the whole goal of the law, and that is what he counted as rubbish.

The way to believe in God is by believing that we ought to be doers of His character traits, it is by this faith that we attain the character traits of God, and attaining the character traits of God means becoming doers of them in obedience to God's instructions for how to do that found in His law.


How else do you know what unrighteousness is apart from the instructions that God has given in His law for how to define what it is? The law reveals certain actions to be unrighteous, so it doesn't make sense to me to think that we need to refrain from doing what the law reveals to be unrighteous while also thinking that we do not need to follow the law.

No offense, but I don't think you really paid attention to my question. What do you think that verse means? It says Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth. Take a moment to consider it. If we no longer need the law to be righteous what is the point in following it?

I don't know if you need to know anything about God or the law to know what unrighteousness is, though speaking from personal experience you may need to know what IS righteous to know if something is unrighteousness. I don't know if God has ever given instructions in the law to define what unrighteousness is either (in a broader sense) though I am ignorant about this.

 

[Soyeong]

No offense, but I don't think you really paid attention to my question. What do you think that verse means? It says Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth. Take a moment to consider it. If we no longer need the law to be righteous what is the point in following it?
I don't know if you need to know anything about God or the law to know what unrighteousness is, though speaking from personal experience you may need to know what IS righteous to know if something is unrighteousness. I don't know if God has ever given instructions in the law to define what unrighteousness is either (in a broader sense) though I am ignorant about this.

Sorry if I was not clear, this is an example of one translation of Romans 10:4:

Romans 10:4 (CEB) Christ is the goal of the Law, which leads to righteousness for all who have faith in God.

I have been making the case from both context surrounding Romans 10:4 and the broader context of other verses in the Bible that there are many problems with translating it as saying that Christ is the end of the law it shouldn't be translated as saying that Christ is the end of the law and that both the surrounding and broader context support translating it as saying that he is the goal of the law.

The only way to attain a character trait is through faith that we ought to be doers of that character trait apart from being required to have first done a certain amount of works as if it could be earned as wage, but being someone who has a character trait means being someone who is a doer of that character trait, such as God being righteous means that he is a doer of righteous works, and it is contradictory for someone to have a character trait apart from being a doer of that trait, so it would be contradictory for God to be righteous if He were not a doer of righteous works. For example, the only way for someone to become courageous is through faith that they ought to be a doer of courageous works apart from being required to have first done a certain amount of courageous works as if courageousness could be earned as a wage, but becoming courageous means becoming of doer of courageous works, it would be contradictory for someone to become courageous apart from becoming a doer of courageous works, and the same is true of righteousness.

In 1 John 3:4-7, everyone who is a doer of righteous works in obedience to God's law is righteous even as they are righteous. God's law was not given as instructions for how to earn our righteousness as the result of our obedience, so it can't be ended for a goal that it never hand, but rather it was given as instructions for how to be a doer of righteous works. Likewise, God's law could not accurately be described as being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12) if it were not instructions for how to be doers of holy, righteous, and good works. This is why Romans 3:27-31 says that the faith by which we are declared righteous does not abolish our need to be doers of righteous works in obedience to God's law, but rather our faith upholds it. So becoming righteous does not remove our need to obey God's law, but just the opposite, it means that we are becoming an obeyer of it. By God's law defining what righteousness is it is also defining what unrighteousness is by contrast.

 

[LeeLoving]

Sorry if I was not clear, this is an example of one translation of Romans 10:4:

Romans 10:4 (CEB) Christ is the goal of the Law, which leads to righteousness for all who have faith in God.

I have been making the case from both context surrounding Romans 10:4 and the broader context of other verses in the Bible that there are many problems with translating it as saying that Christ is the end of the law it shouldn't be translated as saying that Christ is the end of the law and that both the surrounding and broader context support translating it as saying that he is the goal of the law.

The only way to attain a character trait is through faith that we ought to be doers of that character trait apart from being required to have first done a certain amount of works as if it could be earned as wage, but being someone who has a character trait means being someone who is a doer of that character trait, such as God being righteous means that he is a doer of righteous works, and it is contradictory for someone to have a character trait apart from being a doer of that trait, so it would be contradictory for God to be righteous if He were not a doer of righteous works. For example, the only way for someone to become courageous is through faith that they ought to be a doer of courageous works apart from being required to have first done a certain amount of courageous works as if courageousness could be earned as a wage, but becoming courageous means becoming of doer of courageous works, it would be contradictory for someone to become courageous apart from becoming a doer of courageous works, and the same is true of righteousness.

In 1 John 3:4-7, everyone who is a doer of righteous works in obedience to God's law is righteous even as they are righteous. God's law was not given as instructions for how to earn our righteousness as the result of our obedience, so it can't be ended for a goal that it never hand, but rather it was given as instructions for how to be a doer of righteous works. Likewise, God's law could not accurately be described as being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12) if it were not instructions for how to be doers of holy, righteous, and good works. This is why Romans 3:27-31 says that the faith by which we are declared righteous does not abolish our need to be doers of righteous works in obedience to God's law, but rather our faith upholds it. So becoming righteous does not remove our need to obey God's law, but just the opposite, it means that we are becoming an obeyer of it. By God's law defining what righteousness is it is also defining what unrighteousness is by contrast.

That translation says something completely different than what the KJV says. I would absolutely stop using it based on what it says for that verse alone.

Here's what the KJV says, I think you should consider it,

Romans 10:4 (KJV)
“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”

 

[LeeLoving]

Here is what the English Revised Version says according to biblehub, if I hadn't found it I might have gone insane reading what the other versions said and what biblehub says the Greek says (they add a comma which as far as I can tell is not found in the Greek).

English Revised Version
For Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to every one that believeth.

 

[LeeLoving]

The ESV also seems to say the same thing the KJV says.

 

[Soyeong]

The ESV also seems to say the same thing the KJV says.

I don't generally use the CEB, but I just cited it as an example of a translation that translate "telos" in Romans 10:4 as "goal" rather than as "end". As I said, "telos" can be translated as "end", but it can also be translated as "purpose" or "goal" depending upon the context of how it is used, such as in 1 Timothy 1:5, Romans 6:21-22, or James 5:11, though even "end" can mean "intention" or "aim" rather than "termination".

1 Timothy 1:5 (KJV) Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

Romans 6:21-22 (KJV) What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. 22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

James 5:11 (KJV) Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.

So 1 Timothy 1:5 is speaking about the goal of the commandments, what it is pointed towards, or what it is aimed at, not its termination. In Romans 6:21-22, it is not speaking about the termination of everlasting life, but about that being the goal. In Romans 621-22, it is not speaking about the termination of the Lord, but about the goal of the Lord. So in regard to Romans 10:4, "end" is a good translation of "telos" as long as we understanding it as referring to the goal of the law, what it is pointed towards, or what it is aimed at rather than as referring to its termination, but the problem is that people commonly misinterpret Romans 10:4 as speaking about Christ being termination of the law, which is why I think "goal" is a better word choice that more clearly conveys the meaning of the verse.

 

[Bob-Carabbio]

The Torah does not instruct people to go around stoning people to death. A Sanhedrin that executed once in 70 years as considered to be murderous.

Of course since it was God's only begotten SON that they had murdered, it had some significance. Jesus told Pilate that the ones that delivered him to "Roman Justice" where the ones who had the greater SIN.

What you're missing, of course, is that the Christian WAS CRUCIFIED WITH CHRIST, and is no longer under the effects of the law.

HOWEVER, the original commandments are all still valid - i.e. don't Steal, don't KILL, don't LIE, don't monkey with another monkey's monkey, etc.

 

[Soyeong]

Of course since it was God's only begotten SON that they had murdered, it had some significance. Jesus told Pilate that the ones that delivered him to "Roman Justice" where the ones who had the greater SIN.

What you're missing, of course, is that the Christian WAS CRUCIFIED WITH CHRIST, and is no longer under the effects of the law.

HOWEVER, the original commandments are all still valid - i.e. don't Steal, don't KILL, don't LIE, don't monkey with another monkey's monkey, etc.

If we are under God's law, then we are free to do what God revealed to be sin through it, but I don't see that position supported in Romans 6. It says that we are not to continue to sin that grace my about, that we can't live in sin now that we have died to it, that we have been raised with Christ that we too might walk in newness of life, that our old self as crucified with him in order that the body of isn m right be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaves to sin, that one who has died has been set free from sin, that if we have died with Christ that we also live with him, that we must consider ourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus, that we should not let sin reign in our bodies or present our members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present ourselves to God as instruments for righteousness. Sin is the transgression of God's law, so no longer living for sin means now we are to live in obedience to it.

 

[LeeLoving]

I don't generally use the CEB, but I just cited it as an example of a translation that translate "telos" in Romans 10:4 as "goal" rather than as "end". As I said, "telos" can be translated as "end", but it can also be translated as "purpose" or "goal" depending upon the context of how it is used, such as in 1 Timothy 1:5, Romans 6:21-22, or James 5:11, though even "end" can mean "intention" or "aim" rather than "termination".

1 Timothy 1:5 (KJV) Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

Romans 6:21-22 (KJV) What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. 22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

James 5:11 (KJV) Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.

So 1 Timothy 1:5 is speaking about the goal of the commandments, what it is pointed towards, or what it is aimed at, not its termination. In Romans 6:21-22, it is not speaking about the termination of everlasting life, but about that being the goal. In Romans 621-22, it is not speaking about the termination of the Lord, but about the goal of the Lord. So in regard to Romans 10:4, "end" is a good translation of "telos" as long as we understanding it as referring to the goal of the law, what it is pointed towards, or what it is aimed at rather than as referring to its termination, but the problem is that people commonly misinterpret Romans 10:4 as speaking about Christ being termination of the law, which is why I think "goal" is a better word choice that more clearly conveys the meaning of the verse.

I see what you're saying, but I think you might be misreading 1 Timothy as well as falling into bad translation, though I am by no means an expert when it comes to translation.

1 Timothy 1:1-5 (KJV)

1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;

2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

As best as I can see it Paul is reminding Timothy to charge others that they teach no other doctrine and that they neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which he told Timothy to do by commandment of God and Jesus. The end of the commandment (which is for Timothy to charge people with what I just wrote) is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned, and the letter continues. The letter goes on to say that the law is good according to the gospel of God (I assume this means the gospel), so I see no reason from this why someone couldn't follow the law if they wanted to. Romans 6:14 says we are not under the law though, and Romans 10:4 says that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth (I'm using both KJV here). I don't see how Christ could be the goal of the law like it says in the CEB, that is a pretty big and interpretive thing to say, I don't really see how it's possible with what little I know.

 

[Soyeong]

Of course since it was God's only begotten SON that they had murdered, it had some significance. Jesus told Pilate that the ones that delivered him to "Roman Justice" where the ones who had the greater SIN.

What you're missing, of course, is that the Christian WAS CRUCIFIED WITH CHRIST, and is no longer under the effects of the law.

HOWEVER, the original commandments are all still valid - i.e. don't Steal, don't KILL, don't LIE, don't monkey with another monkey's monkey, etc.

I meant to say "If we are not under God's law...".

 

[Bob-Carabbio]

If we are under God's law, then we are free to do what God revealed to be sin through it, but I don't see that position supported in Romans 6. It says that we are not to continue to sin that grace my about, that we can't live in sin now that we have died to it, that we have been raised with Christ that we too might walk in newness of life, that our old self as crucified with him in order that the body of isn m right be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaves to sin, that one who has died has been set free from sin, that if we have died with Christ that we also live with him, that we must consider ourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus, that we should not let sin reign in our bodies or present our members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present ourselves to God as instruments for righteousness. Sin is the transgression of God's law, so no longer living for sin means now we are to live in obedience to it.

O.K. I won't murder anybody today. And a won't steal my neighbor's wife, either.

 

[Soyeong]

I see what you're saying, but I think you might be misreading 1 Timothy as well as falling into bad translation, though I am by no means an expert when it comes to translation.

1 Timothy 1:1-5 (KJV)

1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;

2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

As best as I can see it Paul is reminding Timothy to charge others that they teach no other doctrine and that they neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which he told Timothy to do by commandment of God and Jesus. The end of the commandment (which is for Timothy to charge people with what I just wrote) is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned, and the letter continues. The letter goes on to say that the law is good according to the gospel of God (I assume this means the gospel), so I see no reason from this why someone couldn't follow the law if they wanted to. Romans 6:14 says we are not under the law though, and Romans 10:4 says that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth (I'm using both KJV here). I don't see how Christ could be the goal of the law like it says in the CEB, that is a pretty big and interpretive thing to say, I don't really see how it's possible with what little I know.

I wasn't citing 1 Timothy 1:5 in regard to what it is teaching, but as an example where "telos" is not referring to the termination of something. "Telos" can mean either "end" or "goal", so it should at least be worth discussing which would be the best word choice in Romans 10:4. I cited verses like Exodus 33:13 and Matthew 7:23 to support that Jesus is the goal of the law and verses like Psalms 119:160 saying that all of God's righteous laws are eternal, which are contrary to him being the termination of the law. Furthermore, in Romans 9:30-10:4, they had a zeal for God, but it was not based on knowing him, so they misunderstood the goal of the law by pursuing it as through righteousness were the result of their works in order to establish their own instead of pursing the law as through righteousness were by faith in Christ, for knowing Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness for everyone who has faith. In Romans 10:5-10, this faith references Deuteronomy 30:11-16 as the word of faith that we proclaim in regard to saying that God's law is not too difficult for us to obey, that obedience to it brings life and blessing, in regard to what we are agreeing to obey by confessing that Jesus is Lord, and in regard to the way to believe that God raised him from the dead. So nothing in the surrounding context supports interpreting Romans 10:4 as saying that Jesus is the termination of the law, but rather it is also speaking about the goal of the law.

Likewise, in Romans 7:21-25, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God and served it with his mind, but contrasted it with the law of sin that was working within his members, that was holding him captive, that was waging war against the law of his mind, and that he served with his flesh, so it should at least be worth discussing whether Romans 6:14 is referring to the Law of God or the law of sin, especially when everything else in Romans 6 speaks in favor of obeying the Law of God and against sin.

 

[Soyeong]

O.K. I won't murder anybody today. And a won't steal my neighbor's wife, either.

I had a typo, I mean to say that if we are not under God's law. It is good that you won't do those things, though you should also obey God's other laws.

 

[LeeLoving]

I wasn't citing 1 Timothy 1:5 in regard to what it is teaching, but as an example where "telos" is not referring to the termination of something. "Telos" can mean either "end" or "goal", so it should at least be worth discussing which would be the best word choice in Romans 10:4. I cited verses like Exodus 33:13 and Matthew 7:23 to support that Jesus is the goal of the law and verses like Psalms 119:160 saying that all of God's righteous laws are eternal, which are contrary to him being the termination of the law. Furthermore, in Romans 9:30-10:4, they had a zeal for God, but it was not based on knowing him, so they misunderstood the goal of the law by pursuing it as through righteousness were the result of their works in order to establish their own instead of pursing the law as through righteousness were by faith in Christ, for knowing Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness for everyone who has faith. In Romans 10:5-10, this faith references Deuteronomy 30:11-16 as the word of faith that we proclaim in regard to saying that God's law is not too difficult for us to obey, that obedience to it brings life and blessing, in regard to what we are agreeing to obey by confessing that Jesus is Lord, and in regard to the way to believe that God raised him from the dead. So nothing in the surrounding context supports interpreting Romans 10:4 as saying that Jesus is the termination of the law, but rather it is also speaking about the goal of the law.

Likewise, in Romans 7:21-25, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God and served it with his mind, but contrasted it with the law of sin that was working within his members, that was holding him captive, that was waging war against the law of his mind, and that he served with his flesh, so it should at least be worth discussing whether Romans 6:14 is referring to the Law of God or the law of sin, especially when everything else in Romans 6 speaks in favor of obeying the Law of God and against sin.

Actually I might be totally misreading 1 Timothy and you might be right about what it said, Soyeong, sorry. I really need to be more careful.

I don't understand how Jesus could be the goal of the law though.

John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

Jesus is the goal of the law? Huh?

I don't understand Romans 6:14 enough to discuss it any more with regards to what you're saying. Be careful though not to miss the plain meaning of what scripture is saying and make sure you're using a good translation.

 

[Inquisitor]

Sin was in the world before the law was given (Romans 5:13), which is because people could act in a way that was contrary to God's character before they had been given instructions to refrain from doing that, but sin did not exist before the law that defines what sin is existed.

I agree with you on the following point.

That sin did not exist before the spoken law using the definition that sin is also lawlessness.

Yet the deeds of the flesh have always existed, before, during, and after the spoken law at Mt Sinai.

Everyone will be held to account on the basis of the deeds of the flesh regardless.

The Jews were the only nation that knew God, i.e. God's character, before, during, and after the life of Jesus.

The Gentiles nations were never raised under the law and still today, this remains true.

The New Testament must be interpretated to place the Gentiles under the law.

A plain reading of the N.T will not allow the Gentiles to be placed under the law.

2 Corinthians 3:15-17
But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their hearts; but whenever someone
turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is,
there is freedom.

Freedom to sin?

Freedom from the law!

We now have God within, the mind of Christ, external legal codes are redundant.

 

[Inquisitor]

Actually I might be totally misreading 1 Timothy and you might be right about what it said, Soyeong, sorry. I really need to be more careful.

I don't understand how Jesus could be the goal of the law though.

John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

Jesus is the goal of the law? Huh?

I don't understand Romans 6:14 enough to discuss it any more with regards to what you're saying. Be careful though not to miss the plain meaning of what scripture is saying and make sure you're using a good translation.

Jesus fulfilled the law and Jesus was the only one who could obey all levels of the law.

Jesus not only fulfilled the law, the Author of life fulfilled all things and in all ways.

Fix your thoughts and your life only on Jesus.

12:1-2
Therefore, since we also have such a great cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let’s rid ourselves of every obstacle and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let’s run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking only at Jesus, the originator and perfecter of the faith.

The alpha and the omega of the scripture.

 

[Soyeong]

Actually I might be totally misreading 1 Timothy and you might be right about what it said, Soyeong, sorry. I really need to be more careful.

I don't understand how Jesus could be the goal of the law though.

John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

Jesus is the goal of the law? Huh?
Sorry if I am repeating some of this, the Hebrew word "yada" refers to intimate relational knowledge gained through experience, such as in Genesis 4:1, Adam knew (yada) Eve, she conceived, and she gave birth to Cain, so the purpose of the Bible is to teach us how to know (yada) God, in in other words, how to have an intimate relationship with Him, which is done through experiencing aspects of His character. For example, God is good, so by being a doer of good works we are gaining experiential knowledge of who God is.

In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know (yada) Him, so God gave His law with the goal of teaching us how to know Him, which is through experiencing aspects of His nature. In Jeremiah 9:3 and 9:6, they did not know (yada) God and refused to know Him because in 9:13, they had forsaken God's law, while in 9:24, those who know God know that He delights in practicing steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in all of the earth, so delighting in practicing those and other aspects of God's character in obedience to His law is the way to know Him.

Likewise, when we do good works in obedience to God we are testifying about God's goodness, which is why our good works bring glory to Him (Matthew 5:16), and by testifying that God is good, we are also expressing the belief that God is good, or in other words, we are believing in Him, which is eternal life.

I don't understand Romans 6:14 enough to discuss it any more with regards to what you're saying. Be careful though not to miss the plain meaning of what scripture is saying and make sure you're using a good translation.

Paul spoke about multiple different categories of law other than the Law of God, so whenever he speaks about "law", it should at least be worth discerning which law he was referring to out of all of the laws that he spoke about. For example, in Romans 7:25-8:2, Paul contrasted the Law of God with the law of sin and contrasted the Law of the Spirit with the law of sin and death. In Romans 3:27, he contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, and in Romans 3:31 and Galatians 3:10-12, he contrasted a law that our faith upholds with a law that is not of faith.

In Romans 7:7, Paul said that the Law of God is not sinful, but is how we know what sin is, and when our sin is revealed, then that leads us to repent and causes sin to decrease, however, the law of sin stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death (Romans 7:5), so it is sinful and causes sin to increase. In Romans 7:22, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God, so verse that refer to the Law of God should make sense for it to be referring to something that Paul delighted in doing, so it would be absurd to interpret Romans 7:5 as referring to the Law of God as if Paul delighted in stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, but rather that is the role of the law of sin. So verses that refer to a law that is sinful, that causes sin to increase, or that hinders us from obeying the Law of God should be interpreted as referring to the law of sin that than to the Law of God, such as Romans 5:20, Romans 6:14, Romans 7:5, Galatians 2:19, Galatians 5:16-18, and 1 Corinthians 15:56.

If we aren't under the Law of God, then we have no obligation to refrain from doing what is reveals to be sin, however, you read the chapter of Romans 6, that is clearly the opposite of what Paul was saying, but rather we have been set free from serving sin in order to be free to serve God.

 

[Soyeong]

I agree with you on the following point.

That sin did not exist before the spoken law using the definition that sin is also lawlessness.

Yet the deeds of the flesh have always existed, before, during, and after the spoken law at Mt Sinai.

Everyone will be held to account on the basis of the deeds of the flesh regardless.

The Jews were the only nation that knew God, i.e. God's character, before, during, and after the life of Jesus.

The Gentiles nations were never raised under the law and still today, this remains true.

The New Testament must be interpretated to place the Gentiles under the law.

A plain reading of the N.T will not allow the Gentiles to be placed under the law.

The way to testify about God's righteousness is straightforwardly based on God's righteousness, not on a particular covenant, and God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), so any instructions that God has ever given for how to do that are eternally valid regardless of which covenant someone is under, if any (Psalms 119:160). Likewise, sin was in the world before the law was given, so there were no actions that became righteous or sinful when the law was given, but rather the law revealed what has always been and will always be the way to do that. For example, it was a sin to commit adultery in Genesis 39:9 long before the Mosaic Covenant, during it, after it has become obsolete, and if that we to ever change, then God's righteousness would not be eternal.

If Gentiles were not under God's law, then Gentiles would have no obligation to refrain from doing what God has revealed to be sin through it, have no need to repent from sin, have no need of salvation from sin, have no need of the Gospel message, have no need of grace, and have no need of Jesus to have given himself to redeem us from all lawlessness, but that is clearly contrary to what is taught by the Bible. It is absurd to think that the plain meaning of the Bible is that Gentiles should not obey what God has commanded, but rather the consistent message of the Bible is to repent from our sins.

2 Corinthians 3:15-17
But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their hearts; but whenever someone
turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is,
there is freedom.

Freedom to sin?

Freedom from the law!

We now have God within, the mind of Christ, external legal codes are redundant.

The veil was preventing people from seeing that the goal of everything in Scripture is to testify about how to know Christ, though that veil also prevents those who reject God's law from seeing the same thing.

In Psalms 119:142, God's law is truth, and in John 8:31-36, it is the transgression of God's law that puts us in bondage while it is the truth that sets us free. In Titus 2:14, it doesn't say that Jesus gave himself to free us from God's law, but in order to free us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross is by becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law (Acts 21:20) while returning to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from is the way to reject what he accomplished through the cross. So the freedom that we have in Christ is not the freedom to sin/the freedom from the law, but rather it is the freedom from lawlessness.

It is a child who wants to be free from their parent's rules and doesn't understand the freedom of the structure that it gives them. True freedom is not the freedom to do whatever we want, but the freedom to do what we ought.

The Spirit has the role of leading us to obey God's law (Ezekiel 36:26-27) and Paul contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to His law (Romans 8:4-7).

 

[rogerg]

The way to testify about God's righteousness is straightforwardly based on God's righteousness, not on a particular covenant, and God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), so any instructions that God has ever given for how to do that are eternally valid regardless of which covenant someone is under, if any (Psalms 119:160). Likewise, sin was in the world before the law was given, so there were no actions that became righteous or sinful when the law was given, but rather the law revealed what has always been and will always be the way to do that. For example, it was a sin to commit adultery in Genesis 39:9 long before the Mosaic Covenant, during it, after it has become obsolete, and if that we to ever change, then God's righteousness would not be eternal.

If Gentiles were not under God's law, then Gentiles would have no obligation to refrain from doing what God has revealed to be sin through it, have no need to repent from sin, have no need of salvation from sin, have no need of the Gospel message, have no need of grace, and have no need of Jesus to have given himself to redeem us from all lawlessness, but that is clearly contrary to what is taught by the Bible. It is absurd to think that the plain meaning of the Bible is that Gentiles should not obey what God has commanded, but rather the consistent message of the Bible is to repent from our sins.


The veil was preventing people from seeing that the goal of everything in Scripture is to testify about how to know Christ, though that veil also prevents those who reject God's law from seeing the same thing.

In Psalms 119:142, God's law is truth, and in John 8:31-36, it is the transgression of God's law that puts us in bondage while it is the truth that sets us free. In Titus 2:14, it doesn't say that Jesus gave himself to free us from God's law, but in order to free us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross is by becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law (Acts 21:20) while returning to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from is the way to reject what he accomplished through the cross. So the freedom that we have in Christ is not the freedom to sin/the freedom from the law, but rather it is the freedom from lawlessness.

It is a child who wants to be free from their parent's rules and doesn't understand the freedom of the structure that it gives them. True freedom is not the freedom to do whatever we want, but the freedom to do what we ought.

The Spirit has the role of leading us to obey God's law (Ezekiel 36:26-27) and Paul contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to His law (Romans 8:4-7).

The "freedom" is freedom from law for salvation, not to law for salvation. Through Christ, salvation is only by God's mercy and grace and not by works - it is bestowed upon someone solely as a free gift from an exceedingly merciful and gracious God unto those who in no way deserve to have it.