I believe the Pharisees and such, glorified their own 'traditions' above God's law, rendering God's moral law ineffective.

Matthew 15:6 (KJV) And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Mark 7:13 (KJV) Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Given that absolute truth is what we should strive toward, the text indicates that the Pharisees thought they were following not only the law of Moses, but also the traditions of the fathers, and that was a good thing.

That they thought their obedience to the law of Moses was intact, that alone was/is a problem. N mortal man ever lived the law of God to the satisfaction of the Lord, and yet groups today think that they can store up reward for trying...as if the Lord lowered the bar down from the level perfection so that man can try to offer up a few whisps of sweet-smelling vapors up to the Throne of God for heavenly rewards.

Why so many continue missing the point of what Jesus and His apostles said about this continues to evade my understanding.

MM
 
Given that absolute truth is what we should strive toward, the text indicates that the Pharisees thought they were following not only the law of Moses, but also the traditions of the fathers, and that was a good thing.

That they thought their obedience to the law of Moses was intact, that alone was/is a problem. N mortal man ever lived the law of God to the satisfaction of the Lord, and yet groups today think that they can store up reward for trying...as if the Lord lowered the bar down from the level perfection so that man can try to offer up a few whisps of sweet-smelling vapors up to the Throne of God for heavenly rewards.

Why so many continue missing the point of what Jesus and His apostles said about this continues to evade my understanding.

MM

It is because of SIN my brother!
 
Absolutely true. You see, every religion and cult that denies the blood of Jesus as the only way to redeem mans soul must then come up with an alternative and that is always some kind of rule keeping system.

They will tell their followers if they do this and that and keep the rules then they will be in good standing with the "man".

That has always spoken to the fleshly side of humans. We keep the rules then we are GOOD. Since we are GOOD than God has to accept us!
There are but 2 ways to salvation, Grace of God, real one, or ALL other isms and religions and cults, good works of man!
 
Given that absolute truth is what we should strive toward, the text indicates that the Pharisees thought they were following not only the law of Moses, but also the traditions of the fathers, and that was a good thing.

That they thought their obedience to the law of Moses was intact, that alone was/is a problem. N mortal man ever lived the law of God to the satisfaction of the Lord, and yet groups today think that they can store up reward for trying...as if the Lord lowered the bar down from the level perfection so that man can try to offer up a few whisps of sweet-smelling vapors up to the Throne of God for heavenly rewards.

Why so many continue missing the point of what Jesus and His apostles said about this continues to evade my understanding.

MM
Natural man cannot receive spiritual truth!
 
I believe the Pharisees and such, glorified their own 'traditions' above God's law, rendering God's moral law ineffective.

Matthew 15:6 (KJV) And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Mark 7:13 (KJV) Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
They neglected the spirit of the law in order to make themselves appear good by keeping the letter of it!
 
They neglected the spirit of the law in order to make themselves appear good by keeping the letter of it!
I believe if they had 'kept the letter' of the law, instead of exalting their Traditions over God's Word, they would have believed it's promises spoken through their prophets and thus would have believed in Jesus when he came with the Truth accompanied by testifying signs.

John 5:46 (KJV) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

Luke 24:25-27 (KJV) Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
 
1. Christ is the end of the Law and believers are not under the Mosaic Law. New Testament believers are not under Law but under grace (Rom. 6:14).

2. Since the Lord Jesus Christ fulfills the Law by His person and work, believers are under a new law; the obligation to walk by the Spirit of Life through faith (Rom. 8:2-4). If we are led by the Spirit, then we are not under the Law (Gal. 5:18).

3. Against such, i.e., the fruit of the Spirit, there is no law because the believer is then operating under the highest law, the standards are met as we walk by the Holy Spirit and grow in the Word (Gal. 5:22).
 
1. Christ is the end of the Law and believers are not under the Mosaic Law. New Testament believers are not under Law but under grace (Rom. 6:14).

2. Since the Lord Jesus Christ fulfills the Law by His person and work, believers are under a new law; the obligation to walk by the Spirit of Life through faith (Rom. 8:2-4). If we are led by the Spirit, then we are not under the Law (Gal. 5:18).

3. Against such, i.e., the fruit of the Spirit, there is no law because the believer is then operating under the highest law, the standards are met as we walk by the Holy Spirit and grow in the Word (Gal. 5:22).
Only the saved can agree with this truth though, as the lost cannot agree that we are masde right with God by grace, as they must seek to gte back by own efforts and works!
 
Another absolute I have tried to get across to people is that the Mosaic Law was/is an indivisible unit, and is that which was terminated by the Lord Jesus.

Many have gone along with the usual practice of dividing the Law into three parts, and to therefore uphold the idea that portions of the whole law are no longer binding, while other portions still remain intact as still applying to the need for our adherence today. It's important to see that it was an indivisible unit. When Paul stated that we are not under the Law, this included all three parts, including the Ten Commandments. Some will agree that parts of the Old Testament Law have been done away, but assert the Ten Commandments are supposedly still in force today. All three parts of the Law were designed to function as a unit to guide Israel in all aspects of their life under God's rule. The Ten Commandments can't be legitimately separated from the rest of the law of Moses. Further, even though most recognize this division in the law, the Jews so numbered all the commands that they approached the Law as a unit.

Ryrie stated:

“…the Jewish people either did not acknowledge it (the three-fold division) or at least did not insist on it. Rather they divided the 613 commandments of the Law into twelve families of commandments which were then subdivided into twelve additional families of positive and twelve additional families of negative commands.”

Further, that it is a unit is evident by the fact that the recognition of any of its features, i.e., as a meritorious system of righteousness with God, obligates the person to fulfill the entire Law, as we are taught by both Paul and James (cf. Gal. 3:10, 12; 5:3; Jam. 2:8-11).

Further evidence that the Law is a unit is the penalty of death for disobedience is attached to all three parts of the Law.

Penalties attached to certain commands further emphasize the non-divisible character of the Law. When the command to keep the Sabbath (one of the “commandments”) was violated by a man who gathered sticks on that day, the penalty was death by stoning (Num. 15:32-36). When the people of Israel violated the command concerning the Sabbatical Year for the land (one of the “judgments”), God sent them into captivity where many died (Jer. 25:11). When Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire before the Lord (one of the “ordinances”), they were struck down by God (Lev. 10:1-7). Clearly these commands from various parts of the Law were equally binding, and the punishment equally severe. The Law was a unit.11

Finally, three times in 2 Corinthians 3:6-13 Paul declares that the Mosaic system was done away with or abolished (vss. 7, 11, 13) in relation to those who are in Christ Jesus. In commenting on 2 Corinthians 3:7-13, Chafer wrote:

It is the law as crystallized in the ten commandments which is in view; for that law alone was ‘written and engraven in stones.’ In the midst of the strongest possible contrast between the reign of the teachings of the law and the teachings of grace, it is declared that these commandments were ‘done away’ and ‘abolished.’ It should be recognized that the old was abolished to make place for the new, which far excels in glory. The passing of the law is not, therefore, a loss; it is rather an inestimable gain.”

MM
 
Another absolute I have tried to get across to people is that the Mosaic Law was/is an indivisible unit, and is that which was terminated by the Lord Jesus.
That also is Arnold Fruchtenbaum's position. I have had trouble in trying to grasp that position when applied to the moral law (as in Jeremiah 31.33) coupling it with some of the minutae of Jewish civic law. Surely, Jeremiah is not including the latter?
If not, how is this keeping the law 'intact' as an indivisible unit?
 
That also is Arnold Fruchtenbaum's position. I have had trouble in trying to grasp that position when applied to the moral law (as in Jeremiah 31.33) coupling it with some of the minutae of Jewish civic law. Surely, Jeremiah is not including the latter?
If not, how is this keeping the law 'intact' as an indivisible unit?
If we look at the context, that helps to understand what's being said:

[Jer 31:31-36] 31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. 35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, [and] the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts [is] his name: 36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, [then] the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

This is speaking of the coming and Christ Jesus, and His fulfillment of the law they were given after they brought out of bondage in Egypt. The letter of the law that kills (law of Moses) was never said to be written in their hearts. How can we confirm this? Let's look at this:

[Romans 2:12-16] 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Now, I'm going to say this at the expense of raising the hairs on the backs of some people's necks who are sticklers for logical fallacies:

Silence is sometimes a reasonable defense...

In other words, nowhere does the word of God grant license to divide up the law of Moses and set aside the portions that are not in anyone's ability to keep. Therein is the reason it is believed that it is indivisible. Although that is an argument from silence, it's equally an argument from silence to practice the art of dividing up the law and teaching others that they can rightfully disregard some or most, and keep only the remainder, of the ten, or nine...

[Galatians 5:14, 18] 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. ... 18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

If love is the means by which we fulfill all the law, then by what means or rationale can the law be divided up in any manner, by any man, that can possibly nullify this statement, among others, that call upon the law in its entirety rather than man-made divisions on the basis of capability for obedience? If no man could keep any division of the law perfectly for justification, and yet disregard the other sections men set aside as "fulfilled" by Christ, they are teaching others to break all those sections by omission. That makes one guilty of all.

The idea that Jesus fulfilled only part of the law is absurd, and yet another argument from silence, for it is written:

Matthew 5:17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

So, not only did Jesus not destroy the law, but also the writings of the prophets throughout all the other books beyond Torah recording the prophets. How anyone in the divisible law crowd can derive from any of that where mankind was licensed by God to divide up the law, setting aside any part so that it might allegedly be easier to keep what they point at as the remainder, I don't see that allowance anywhere.

We keep the moral law, as well as all the rest of the law, by way of our love for God and for others. How? Simply stated, the fulfillment that Jesus accomplished is imputed to us. The sacrifices not only provided ceremonial offering and temporal cleansing, it pointed at Christ, who is that fulfillment. Some might argue, "But you eat pork, which is forbidden in the law." Really? Well, I point back to Peter and that sheet that same down with all manner of what was once forbidden. It is only in the fulfillment of the law that the Lord declared those foods clean.

This can get really deep, so if you have other questions or observations, then I welcome your thoughts. I likely didn't tell you anything you don't already know, but I thought I'd take a stab at it.

MM
 
This is speaking of the coming and Christ Jesus, and His fulfillment of the law they were given after they brought out of bondage in Egypt. The letter of the law that kills (law of Moses) was never said to be written in their hearts. How can we confirm this? Let's look at this:

[Romans 2:12-16] 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
We do see it applied again in Hebrews...

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: (Heb 8:10)

This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
(Heb 10:16)

So it may apply to the Church as well as Israel.
In other words, nowhere does the word of God grant license to divide up the law of Moses and set aside the portions that are not in anyone's ability to keep. Therein is the reason it is believed that it is indivisible. Although that is an argument from silence, it's equally an argument from silence to practice the art of dividing up the law and teaching others that they can rightfully disregard some or most, and keep only the remainder, of the ten, or nine...

[Galatians 5:14, 18] 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. ... 18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
I would say the moral law is indivisible/unchangeable but the ceremonial? Eh, still not convinced as we even seeing God declaring all meats clean in Acts 10. Besides, weren't they 'shadows of a greater reality?

Hebrews 10:1 (KJV) For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

We keep the moral law, as well as all the rest of the law, by way of our love for God and for others. How? Simply stated, the fulfillment that Jesus accomplished is imputed to us.
We do need to be careful not to mix justification, Christ's work for us including His imputation of righteousness and Christ's work in us, (sanctification), working in His children that they may increasingly produce and display the fruit of the Spirit. (love, peace, joy etc.)
We have been given a new nature through the new birth and I believe this works in tandem with Jer 31:33; Heb 8:10 and 10:16 so that the moral law is not a 'work' we do, but in a sense part of that new nature.
Nice discussing this with you even though it is behind ' glass darkly' (1Cor 13:12)
 
We do see it applied again in Hebrews...

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: (Heb 8:10)

This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
(Heb 10:16)

So it may apply to the Church as well as Israel.

Yes. I fully agree. We're told:

[Rom 10:11-13] 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

I would say the moral law is indivisible/unchangeable but the ceremonial? Eh, still not convinced as we even seeing God declaring all meats clean In Acts 10. Besides, weren't they 'shadows of a greater reality?

Hebrews 10:1 (KJV) For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

The foods that were unclean under the law became clean, but not because the law was divided, but because the law was no longer binding upon those of us who are in Christ Jesus. See the difference? Those items that were unclean are still unclean, but only to those who are under the law. Therein is the reason the Lord said to Peter:

[Act 10:15] And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common.

Unless one is prepared to claim the Lord changed the law, which He did not, the explanation then leads only to governance. We walk by the spirit, not by the letter of the law that kills.

We do need to be careful not to mix justification, Christ's work for us including His imputation of righteousness and Christ's work in us, (sanctification), working in His children that they may increasingly produce and display the fruit of the Spirit. (love, peace, joy etc.)

Agreed.

We have been given a new nature through the new birth and I believe this works in tandem with Jer 31:33; Heb 8:10 and 10:16 so that the moral law is not a 'work' we do, but in a sense part of that new nature.

Yes! Absolutely. That's a great way to put it. The law in its totality is fulfilled in Christ Jesus, and encapsulated in loving God with one's all, and loving others as self.

Nice discussing this with you even though it is behind ' glass darkly' (1Cor 13:12)

Well, blessedly, that glass doesn't have to remain as dark as it is for most. How many people do you know who ready verses like this:

[Isaiah 55:9] For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

...and then ask the Lord for His ways and His thoughts? Most people don't think to ask. Nowhere did the Lord ever say that we are not to ever ask for such. What we are promised is that when we ask for good things that we need, He will give them to us in the measure we can take according to His good pleasure.

MM
 
The foods that were unclean under the law became clean, but not because the law was divided, but because the law was no longer binding upon those of us who are in Christ Jesus. See the difference?
I'll only comment on this point.

Bringing up Hebrews again ...

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
(Heb 10:1)
...it seems to me that God was using 'clean' and 'unclean' animals etc. as types pointing to an eternal reality. In any case I don't believe there was anything intrinsic in the animals themselves that made them clean or unclean. God's declaration was enough to make it law as was His declaration to cleanse all meats, as in Mark...

Mark 7:18-19 (NASB) And He *said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

-interesting
 
I'll only comment on this point.

Bringing up Hebrews again ...

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
(Heb 10:1)
...it seems to me that God was using 'clean' and 'unclean' animals etc. as types pointing to an eternal reality. In any case I don't believe there was anything intrinsic in the animals themselves that made them clean or unclean. God's declaration was enough to make it law as was His declaration to cleanse all meats, as in Mark...

Mark 7:18-19 (NASB) And He *said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

-interesting

I guess I'm still not understanding your position. Does indivisibility pose a problem to your thinking in relation to scripture?

MM
 
I guess I'm still not understanding your position. Does indivisibility pose a problem to your thinking in relation to scripture?

MM
As I stated, only in the area of civic/moral law I see a distinction but not in the area by which a man may justify himself through the law (which is impossible); that part is unified.
 
As I stated, only in the area of civic/moral law I see a distinction but not in the area by which a man may justify himself through the law (which is impossible); that part is unified.

Ok. I was just trying to nail down my understanding of your thoughts. I agree there are three basic divisions in the law by type. There are also other sub-divisions that I don't see any reason to go into.

I should have defined my meaning for the use of a term like "indivisible." That has to do with the keeping of the law. If one says that we are still required to observe even what is called the "moral" law, such as nine of the ten commandments, that's going back to the law, and there is a heavy penalty for doing so.

As new creations in Christ Jesus, moral absolutes are a part of our makeup. We are reborn with the law of God defining our newness in life under the Headship of Christ Jesus. So, if I look at the nine moral laws of the ten commandments, and say, "I will do those," I've fallen from grace. This teaching right from the words of Paul are not taught in most church organizations and other Bible teaching materials available for Sunday school and Bible study courses. It goes completely ignored, with omission being the sin of false teachers. Additionally, dare I break just one jot or tittle of any one of those laws, and I'm guilty of all the law. Stepping out from under the covering of grace, I have put myself under the full weight of the letter of the law that kills, no longer covered by the blood of Christ Jesus. I'm not saying there was a loss of salvation, for only the Lord can judge that in individual lives, but it can perhaps endanger the longevity of one's life on this earth.

I hope that provides better clarification of where I was coming from.

MM
 
Ok. I was just trying to nail down my understanding of your thoughts. I agree there are three basic divisions in the law by type. There are also other sub-divisions that I don't see any reason to go into.

I should have defined my meaning for the use of a term like "indivisible." That has to do with the keeping of the law. If one says that we are still required to observe even what is called the "moral" law, such as nine of the ten commandments, that's going back to the law, and there is a heavy penalty for doing so.

As new creations in Christ Jesus, moral absolutes are a part of our makeup. We are reborn with the law of God defining our newness in life under the Headship of Christ Jesus. So, if I look at the nine moral laws of the ten commandments, and say, "I will do those," I've fallen from grace. This teaching right from the words of Paul are not taught in most church organizations and other Bible teaching materials available for Sunday school and Bible study courses. It goes completely ignored, with omission being the sin of false teachers. Additionally, dare I break just one jot or tittle of any one of those laws, and I'm guilty of all the law. Stepping out from under the covering of grace, I have put myself under the full weight of the letter of the law that kills, no longer covered by the blood of Christ Jesus. I'm not saying there was a loss of salvation, for only the Lord can judge that in individual lives, but it can perhaps endanger the longevity of one's life on this earth.

I hope that provides better clarification of where I was coming from.

MM
Agreed, but instead of nine, I would keep all 10 intact. I see the Sabbath commandment as primarily our duty to find our rest in Christ and His Redemptive work in our stead. That's why the author of Hebrews urges us to seek that rest offered in Christ. Heb 3:7-4:13. It goes right to the heart of the other nine by touching on unbelief.
 

bobinfaith

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Senior Moderator
Ok. I was just trying to nail down my understanding of your thoughts. I agree there are three basic divisions in the law by type. There are also other sub-divisions that I don't see any reason to go into.

I should have defined my meaning for the use of a term like "indivisible." That has to do with the keeping of the law. If one says that we are still required to observe even what is called the "moral" law, such as nine of the ten commandments, that's going back to the law, and there is a heavy penalty for doing so.

As new creations in Christ Jesus, moral absolutes are a part of our makeup. We are reborn with the law of God defining our newness in life under the Headship of Christ Jesus. So, if I look at the nine moral laws of the ten commandments, and say, "I will do those," I've fallen from grace. This teaching right from the words of Paul are not taught in most church organizations and other Bible teaching materials available for Sunday school and Bible study courses. It goes completely ignored, with omission being the sin of false teachers. Additionally, dare I break just one jot or tittle of any one of those laws, and I'm guilty of all the law. Stepping out from under the covering of grace, I have put myself under the full weight of the letter of the law that kills, no longer covered by the blood of Christ Jesus. I'm not saying there was a loss of salvation, for only the Lord can judge that in individual lives, but it can perhaps endanger the longevity of one's life on this earth.

I hope that provides better clarification of where I was coming from.

MM

Agreed, but instead of nine, I would keep all 10 intact. I see the Sabbath commandment as primarily our duty to find our rest in Christ and His Redemptive work in our stead. That's why the author of Hebrews urges us to seek that rest offered in Christ. Heb 3:7-4:13. It goes right to the heart of the other nine by touching on unbelief.

Good stuff, guys. From reading 4 pages and 2000 views, it seems this discussion is honing in on the jist of the correct teaching Law of Moses, the 10 Commandments and the Gospels.

More to come...

God bless you all.
 
Top