ECT What are the works of the Law?

[turbosixx]

Can this be spoken of as true for the Galatians?

Paul was ministering in Gentile lands.

If you look at the context, I would suggest that Jews who became Christians are stirring this up.

1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

Then Paul goes into describing that he is from the Jews.
1:13 For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it; 14and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions.

Then he says 2:3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

His point being, who was a better Jew than me and I didn't circumcise Titus and having preaching the gospel for 17 years (1:18 & 2:1) he didn't feel the need to be circumcised.

Also in Ch. 2, Peter is still struggling with putting the old law behind him.

2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.

As much as people don't want "of the law" to be the Mosaical law, the context proves it is.

 

[Jacob]

If you look at the context, I would suggest that Jews who became Christians are stirring this up.

1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

Then Paul goes into describing that he is from the Jews.
1:13 For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it; 14and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions.

Then he says 2:3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

His point being, who was a better Jew than me and I didn't circumcise Titus and having preaching the gospel for 17 years (1:18 & 2:1) he didn't feel the need to be circumcised.

Also in Ch. 2, Peter is still struggling with putting the old law behind him.

2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.

As much as people don't want "of the law" to be the Mosaical law, the context proves it is.

Maybe it is not "the Mosaical law" as we see it. At least I struggle with this. I don't even use the word Mosaical. I have referred before to the Law of Moses. I believe the Law of Moses is the Law of God. I believe the Ten Commandments are the Law of God.

Remember, Paul himself walked orderly, keeping the law, and he did have Timothy circumcised (and the gospel was not compromised in this).

There is instruction for Gentiles in Acts 15.

I myself am circumcised.

1 Corinthians 7:19 NASB.

 

[turbosixx]

Maybe it is not "the Mosaical law" as we see it. At least I struggle with this. I don't even use the word Mosaical. I have referred before to the Law of Moses. I believe the Law of Moses is the Law of God. I believe the Ten Commandments are the Law of God.

Remember, Paul himself walked orderly, keeping the law, and he did have Timothy circumcised (and the gospel was not compromised in this).

There is instruction for Gentiles in Acts 15.

I myself am circumcised.

1 Corinthians 7:19 NASB.

Yes, Timothy was circumcised but Paul had good reason. Under what law does circumcision matter? Not in Christ.

Rom. 2:25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.

Your right, Law of Moses might be a better descriptor. What other law could the context support?

 

[Jacob]

Yes, Timothy was circumcised but Paul had good reason. Under what law does circumcision matter? Not in Christ.

Rom. 2:25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.

Your right, Law of Moses might be a better descriptor. What other law could the context support?

God's commandments matter whether you are circumcised or not.

 

[turbosixx]

God's commandments matter whether you are circumcised or not.

I agree, God's commandments matter. Circumcision is important under the law of Moses but not in Christ. Do you agree?

 

[Jacob]

I agree, God's commandments matter. Circumcision is important under the law of Moses but not in Christ. Do you agree?

I believe it is still possible to obey the Ten Commandments and circumcision and kosher and everything else except for temple sacrifices today.

 

[Nick M]

What are the works of the Law?

Deuteronomy 6

5And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy mind, and with all thy soul, and all thy strength. 6 And these words, all that I command thee this day, shall be in thy heart and in thy soul. .

Leviticus 19

17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, so thou shalt not bear sin on his account. 18 And thy hand shall not avenge thee; and thou shalt not be angry with the children of thy people; and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; I am the Lord.

That is doing works of the law. You think it isn't?

Matthew 22

36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”

37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

How is that working out for you?

 

[Nick M]

I believe it is still possible to obey the Ten Commandments and circumcision and kosher and everything else except for temple sacrifices today.

You truly are in the slow learners group.

Galatians 5

3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.

James 2

10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.

 

[Nick M]

When Paul says "of the law" he is specifying a specific law. From the context, what law do you think he talking about?

Galatians 5

3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.

How is that working out for you? Be reconciled to God.

 

[Jacob]

Nick M,

Some people think the works of the law are just sacrifices. You think it is more than that.

I believe that loving God and our neighbor is for everyone, regardless of whether a person knows these commands are found in the Law or not. But it is God's Law.

 

[turbosixx]

I believe it is still possible to obey the Ten Commandments and circumcision and kosher and everything else except for temple sacrifices today.

I'm going to disagree with you here and this is my reasoning.

Gal. 3:24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

I understand the 10 commandments and the law give us insight but they fell short in how God truly wants us to live our lives.
Matt. 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery'; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

You see how we can lust after a woman and not be guilty of one of the 10 commandments but we would be guilty under the law of Christ. That is why the law was changed and now Christ is our high priest.

Heb. 7:11 Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.

 

[turbosixx]

Galatians 5

3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.

How is that working out for you? Be reconciled to God.

What law do you understand Paul talking about?

 

[Jacob]

I'm going to disagree with you here and this is my reasoning.

Gal. 3:24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

I understand the 10 commandments and the law give us insight but they fell short in how God truly wants us to live our lives.
Matt. 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery'; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

You see how we can lust after a woman and not be guilty of one of the 10 commandments but we would be guilty under the law of Christ. That is why the law was changed and now Christ is our high priest.

Heb. 7:11 Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.

I know according to Hebrews there is a change of priesthood and a change of law. I don't believe this changes the Ten Commandments, however, and they are still the commands of God.

 

[Jacob]

I'm going to disagree with you here and this is my reasoning.

Gal. 3:24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

I understand the 10 commandments and the law give us insight but they fell short in how God truly wants us to live our lives.
Matt. 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery'; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

You see how we can lust after a woman and not be guilty of one of the 10 commandments but we would be guilty under the law of Christ. That is why the law was changed and now Christ is our high priest.

Heb. 7:11 Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.

I know according to Hebrews there is a change of priesthood and a change of law. I don't believe this changes the Ten Commandments, however, and they are still the commands of God.

You refer to the law of Christ. This is to bear one another's burdens. Since according to the Law we are to love our neighbor, this makes sense. Just as I view the idea of lust as adultery because the command to not commit adultery has a spiritual application. That is, if you look at someone with lust it is considered adultery and serious even though a person will likely not be considered guilty of adultery. The heart or the eye is very important. It not only leads to adultery but it is adultery. Adultery carries the death penalty, and surely we know we are to die because of sin. But being guilty of adultery in a court of law requires more than just looking at someone with lust... though in God's court it is sin and all sin is worthy of death?

Or, lust is not the sin not leading to death. Unless it is talking about in a court of law? I honestly don't know.

1 John 5:16 NASB - If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.

1 John 5:17 NASB - All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death.

Do you believe the change of law spoken of is a change to the Law of Moses, the Law of God, the Ten Commandments, the priesthood, or what?

Is the law of Christ a new law, on your view? A new law is different from a change of law, as I understand it... though I want to understand what the writer of Hebrews had in mind.

I believe Jesus observed and taught the Law.

 

[turbosixx]

You refer to the law of Christ. This is to bear one another's burdens. Since according to the Law we are to love our neighbor, this makes sense. Just as I view the idea of lust as adultery because the command to not commit adultery has a spiritual application. That is, if you look at someone with lust it is considered adultery and serious even though a person will likely not be considered guilty of adultery. The heart or the eye is very important. It not only leads to adultery but it is adultery. Adultery carries the death penalty, and surely we know we are to die because of sin. But being guilty of adultery in a court of law requires more than just looking at someone with lust... though in God's court it is sin and all sin is worthy of death?

Or, lust is not the sin not leading to death. Unless it is talking about in a court of law? I honestly don't know.

1 John 5:16 NASB - If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.

1 John 5:17 NASB - All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death.

Do you believe the change of law spoken of is a change to the Law of Moses, the Law of God, the Ten Commandments, the priesthood, or what?

Is the law of Christ a new law, on your view? A new law is different from a change of law, as I understand it... though I want to understand what the writer of Hebrews had in mind.

I believe Jesus observed and taught the Law.

The law of Christ is the new law and the old one is no longer in effect.

Yes, Jesus observed the law because he lived under the law but I'm not aware of him teaching the law. He told the Jews to obey the law because until his death, burial and resurrection the new law was not in effect. Heb. 9:16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. 17For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.

If Jesus is our high priest we can not be under or follow the law of Moses. The two are in conflict. That is Paul's entire point in the book of Galatians. They wanted to add one thing to the law of Christ from the old.

Gal. 5:3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

The 10 commandments and the law was not intended for the Gentiles but the Israelites. Over and over God says: "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel" Rom. 2:14 "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law"....17 But if you bear the name "Jew" and rely upon the Law.....being instructed out of the Law

The old covenant at Mt. Sinai was for the Israelites and the new covenant is as well but only to them first because in the new covenant Gentiles are included for in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile. Heb. 8:8 ..."Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, When I will effect a new covenant With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; 9Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers On the day when I took them by the hand To lead them out of the land of Egypt; "

I hope this answers some of your questions. In short, the old law had a purpose but it could not remove sin. Jesus didn't add to that law but established an new one based on his priesthood that could remove sin.

Heb. 10:1 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near....9then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will." He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

 

[Jacob]

The law of Christ is the new law and the old one is no longer in effect.

Yes, Jesus observed the law because he lived under the law but I'm not aware of him teaching the law. He told the Jews to obey the law because until his death, burial and resurrection the new law was not in effect. Heb. 9:16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. 17For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.

If Jesus is our high priest we can not be under or follow the law of Moses. The two are in conflict. That is Paul's entire point in the book of Galatians. They wanted to add one thing to the law of Christ from the old.

Gal. 5:3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

The 10 commandments and the law was not intended for the Gentiles but the Israelites. Over and over God says: "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel" Rom. 2:14 "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law"....17 But if you bear the name "Jew" and rely upon the Law.....being instructed out of the Law

The old covenant at Mt. Sinai was for the Israelites and the new covenant is as well but only to them first because in the new covenant Gentiles are included for in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile. Heb. 8:8 ..."Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, When I will effect a new covenant With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; 9Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers On the day when I took them by the hand To lead them out of the land of Egypt; "

I hope this answers some of your questions. In short, the old law had a purpose but it could not remove sin. Jesus didn't add to that law but established an new one based on his priesthood that could remove sin.

Heb. 10:1 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near....9then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will." He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Is it true that what separated Jew from Gentile was circumcision and the Law of Moses? Again, Jesus said He did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. Matthew 5:17-20.

I don't see anyone trying to add to the law of Christ.

The law of Christ is in keeping with that which came before as I see it. I don't see the law of Christ as a separate law code.

The Law is about love of God and love of our neighbor.

If the Law is still supposed to be preached at all, then why would we want to say any of the commands in the law are no longer valid?

 

[turbosixx]

Is it true that what separated Jew from Gentile was circumcision and the Law of Moses? Again, Jesus said He did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. Matthew 5:17-20.

I don't see anyone trying to add to the law of Christ.

The law of Christ is in keeping with that which came before as I see it. I don't see the law of Christ as a separate law code.

The Law is about love of God and love of our neighbor.

If the Law is still supposed to be preached at all, then why would we want to say any of the commands in the law are no longer valid?

What part of the law of Moses do you keep and not keep? Who decides and based on what?

 

[Jacob]

What part of the law of Moses do you keep and not keep? Who decides and based on what?

The only command I don't keep is wearing tzit-tzit. I was told by a Jew that Gentiles do not need to. Though I am circumcised and keep the Law in the United States of America.

 

[turbosixx]

The only command I don't keep is wearing tzit-tzit. I was told by a Jew that Gentiles do not need to. Though I am circumcised and keep the Law in the United States of America.

I'm curious how you keep the law. Do you bring grain and animals to be sacrificed at the temple by a levitical priest? That's part of the law.

 

[Jacob]

I'm curious how you keep the law. Do you bring grain and animals to be sacrificed at the temple? That's part of the law.

There is no animal sacrifice. In fact there is no temple. It was destroyed as Jesus said it would be.

I don't know at this time if there will be a future temple. That is another discussion. You are asking about commands in the law. Sacrifices were for the temple only.

It is part of the law. But it is not part of the law that can be kept today.

Does that make sense?