The curse of the law

[slave]

Have we distinguished the different laws? In Romans 8 there is a wonderful term: The law of the Spirit and life [Vs.2] In this phrase three things are composed together: Law, Spirit, and Life. This Law is the fourth law mentioned in Romans. In chapter seven there are three laws: The Law of God, the Law in our own members, and the Law of the Mind.

The law of the Spirit of life, no doubt, is the law of the divine life. By regeneration we received the divine life into our Spirit, and with this highest life, there is the highest Law. This Law liberates us from the law of sin and death.

As we have seen, the third law, that is, the Law of the Mind, always responds and corresponds to the first law, the Law of God.

So to help see it better: Law one: Law of God.
Law two: Law of Sin and Death.
Law three: Law of the Mind.
Law four: Law of the Spirit of Life, is in our Spirit. [Hence, the [soul] of the body, soul, and Spirit].

The problem, however, is with the second law, the law of sin and death. Because the third law is weaker than second law, the second law always defeats the third law and brings us into captivity. However, the fourth law; the law of the Spirit of Life, is the, yet still, Higher and strongest law, which liberates us from the second law and fulfills all the requirements of the first law. This is what I see clearly mentioned in Romans 8:2 and 4.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Your failure to give an unequivocal answer reveals your answer,
which has the unavoidable totally contra-NT implications following:

Israel should have told God, "Thanks, but no thanks."

God made a false offer to Israel when he promised blessings for compliance with the covenant,
for all he was actually promising were curses.

God tricked Israel.

We find this bizarre notion nowhere in the NT.

That explains why you think oaths are forbidden, because they are trickery.

This is bizarre and totally contra-NT.

My failure to answer reveals my answer????? LOL No, it's just means I don't answer questions from persons who are not sincere in the inquiry of them. Such persons who are well known for misrepresenting others words and twisting them in order to build straw man arguments and then bring false accusations. Hmmmm where have we seen that before?

But I see even without any answer from me, you still brought the false accusations anyway. For shame.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Hope you dont mind, cause if you do then you will have to sue me (lol)

Are you getting snooty with me? I hope not, cause then I'll have to take you down a notch or two. LOL

 

[DesiredHaven]

Are you getting snooty with me? I hope not, cause then I'll have to take you down a notch or two. LOL

Yep,

Your hope is misplaced
(shakes in booties) LOL!

 

[Elin]

So you don't agree that

entering into the Sinaitic covenant was a curse (the wrong thing to do), or

that Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant because it bound them to curses in the event of their violation of it?

Your failure to give an unequivocal answer to a simple yes or no question reveals your answer.

My failure to answer reveals my answer????? LOL No, it's just means
I don't answer questions from persons who are not sincere in the inquiry of them. Such persons who are well known for misrepresenting others words and twisting them in order to build straw man arguments and then bring false accusations. Hmmmm where have we seen that before?

Assertion without demonstration is without merit.

Ad hominem. . .non-responsive. . .you have me confused with someone else.

The conclusion to be drawn from your non-answer of a simple yes or no question belies the reason you give for failing to answer.

I'm comfortable with that. . .because it is an answer.

 

[Elin]

ISIT,

Excellent study!

Do you think Israel should not have agreed to enter the Sinaitic Covenant?

 

[DesiredHaven]

Mat 27:12 And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.

Non responsive, good job

 

[DesiredHaven]

Here is InSpiritInTruth's post, I separated his points ...

Many believe the law itself is “the curse”

but scripture tells us Gods law is holy, just, and good in

Romans 7:12 “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.”

So what was the curse?

The curse of the law came in by 2 ways, the first is shown here in

Deuteronomy 27:26“Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.

And all the people shall say, Amen.”

The first part of this curse has to do with sin

as it is written in

Romans 7:10-11[SUP]“ [/SUP]And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.”

Again we see the law was ordained unto life,

but the curse came when man could not keep the law because of the weakness of his flesh and sin.

So who’s the bad guy here, the law, or sin?

If you answered sin then you would be correct.

Now for the second part of the curse, which is swearing to the oath.

It is written

Galatians 3:10 “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written,

Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.”

After Moses had read the law, all the blessings and the curses, the people then bound themselves to the oath by agreeing to keep everything that was written in the law.

The word oath in Hebrew can also be defined and shown as the word curse in scripture.

And swearing to an oath can also be shown as binding ones soul to a curse as in

Nehemiah 10:29 “They clave to their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God's law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the Lord our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes;”

And in

Daniel 9:11 “Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him.”

And here is where the curse came in by swearing themselves to the oath in

Numbers 30:2 “If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.”

And so being unable to perform the vow to God to keep the whole law, because of the weakness of the flesh and of sin, then the curses mentioned in the law were put into effect.

Which is why Jesus said

Matthew 5:33-37 “Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: [SUP]34 [/SUP]But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:[SUP]35[/SUP]Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.[SUP]36 [/SUP]Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.[SUP]37 [/SUP]But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.”

And here again also in

James 5:12 “But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.”

(and lastly a couple of lines of his own advice)

And a word to the wise, if you ever have to go to court and are asked to forswear yourself to an oath, or any other vow or oath for that matter…don’t do it! Peace.

Its an excellent post

 

[just-me]

She is doing her best to misrepresent what I clearly stated in my OP in order to build a straw man argument by suggesting and implying things I did not say. But I'm not in the mood for playing her games.

Elin does that all the time.

 

[DesiredHaven]

One must bear witness of the evil as it is spoken not make words up and insert them into others mouths

Jesus answered him,
If I have spoken evil,
bear witness of the evil:
but if well, why smitest thou me?

What someone says (even the law) and what others might hear could be two different things as shown in the witness of Jesus and the false witnesses and accusers set against him. And those who just wished to sit at his mouth only to accuse him (with their own questions) and words they wished to insert into his word as well. All for entangling the Lord Jesus Christ in his speaking as well. Just saying.

 

[MarcR]

Do you think Israel should not have agreed to enter the Sinaitic Covenant?

Good question!


What I think makes little difference; since they are not able to rethink their decision based on my advice.

It is only in retrospect that we see that the intent of the Law was to show that we are unable to keep it.

I don't think of what you call the Sinatic covenant as being the Sinatic covenant. I think of the old covenant as the covenant of blood (Brit Ha-adamah). Animal sacrifice was in place at the time of Abel; and physical circumcision was in place at the time of Abraham. Both predated the Law and Moses my a long time.

Both elements of the covenant of blood were opportunities to demonstrate faith through obedience; and both were doable. Both elements of the covenant of blood looked forward to Jesus--- both His teaching and His sacrifice on the cross.

 

[Elin]

Mat 27:12 And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.

Non responsive, good job

Jesus refused to answer accusations, "opening not his mouth" to fulfill Isa 53:7 (see Mt 26:54, 56;
Lk 24:44), he did not refuse to answer yes or no questions (Mk 15:2).

I have asked a yes or no question, the kind of question Jesus answered.

"Do you think that
entering into the Sinaitic covenant was a curse (the wrong thing to do), or
that Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant because it bound them to curses in the event of their violation of it?"

However, your response here illustrates precisely what I am dealing with.

You've presented Scripture in a way that indicates not answering (Mt 27:12) is to fulfill prophecy (Isa 53:7).

That causes me to ask, "Do you think this person's not answering is to fulfill prophecy?"

A simple yes or no question to determine if I understand correctly your use of Scripture here.

I assume you would not refuse to answer this simple yes or no question,
as ISIT refuses to answer my simple yes or no question.

Hope this helps you understand where I am coming from here.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Mat 27:12 And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.

Non responsive, good job

ISIT just my imagination or did your eye change?

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Elin does that all the time.

Yes, I am well aware of her tactics, but it's hard to build a straw man without any straw.

 

[just-me]

One must bear witness of the evil as it is spoken not make words up and insert them into others mouths

Jesus answered him,
If I have spoken evil,
bear witness of the evil:
but if well, why smitest thou me?

What someone says (even the law) and what others might hear could be two different things as shown in the witness of Jesus and the false witnesses and accusers set against him. And those who just wished to sit at his mouth only to accuse him (with their own questions) and words they wished to insert into his word as well. All for entangling the Lord Jesus Christ in his speaking as well. Just saying.

"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you." John 15:18

"Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses." 1 Timothy 6:12

"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." Jude 1:3

"Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?" John 7:19

You're cool

 

[DesiredHaven]

ISIT just my imagination or did your eye change?

If I said,

That could come of evil

So.... YES.

(you are just so perceptive)

 

[DesiredHaven]

Jesus refused to answer accusations, "opening not his mouth" to fulfill Isa 53:7 (see Mt 26:54, 56;
Lk 24:44), he did not refuse to answer yes or no questions (Mk 15:2).

I have asked a yes or no question, the kind of question Jesus answered.

"Do you think that
entering into the Sinaitic covenant was a curse (the wrong thing to do), or
that Israel should not have agreed to the Sinaitic Covenant because it bound them to curses in the event of their violation of it?"

However, your response here illustrates precisely what I am dealing with.

You've presented Scripture in a way that indicates not answering (Mt 27:12) is to fulfill prophecy (Isa 53:7).

That causes me to ask, "Do you think this person's not answering is to fulfill prophecy?"

A simple yes or no question to determine if I understand correctly your use of Scripture here.

I assume you would not refuse to answer this simple yes or no question,
as ISIT refuses to answer my simple yes or no question.

Hope this helps you understand where I am coming from here.

Sorry I am with InSpiritInTruth you have an issue that is distinctly your own.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

If I said,

That could come of evil

So.... YES.

(you are just so perceptive)

I know, hard to slip that stuff past me. lol

 

[DesiredHaven]

"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you." John 15:18

"Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses." 1 Timothy 6:12

"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." Jude 1:3

"Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?" John 7:19

You're cool

Good verses actually

Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife;
and some also of good will:

The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely,
supposing to add affliction to my bonds:

But the other of love,
knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.

He confirms Paul's words anyway, but you could nit pick anything.

I will pick on someones words if they insert words into the pharisees own mouth (at Christ) so I get it but at least I can bear witness at what was spoken (which was not there) verses sticking words in peoples mouth and making them answer to me on those.

 

[DesiredHaven]

I know, hard to slip that stuff past me. lol

Oh brother, go back to being quiet LOL!