The OT Law

[DaveM]

Is the law still relative in God's eyes?

Especially in light of Luke 16,
To me, this says that John the Baptist is a time marker we can see where salvation comes into the light, and from that time forward salvation is to be preached.
However, the law has not passed away or vanished. Jesus seems to be saying heaven and earth will pass away before the law does.

Luke 16
16. The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the gospel of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.
17. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for a single stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law

I do not think we can fully understand what the law is if we just read the OT, the NT is what actually reveals the law's purpose and true meaning. In the NT we will find much scripture about the Law.


Jesus himself says he came not to abolish the law but fulfill the law.

Matthew 5-17
17. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

I have always wondered what fulfilled means in a way that I could relate to what is being said. I know he was the only one to keep the law fully and perfectly.
But I think it is more than that. I think it also means the true meaning of the law was never revealed until it was actually fulfilled. By Jesus fulfilling the law he shines a light on the true meaning and purpose of the law, which seems was never revealed in the OT. Jesus himself said the law

According to the scripture, The meaning of the law was to show us how sinful we truly are and how we could never earn our way to heaven. But it hangs on loving God with all your heart soul and mind and loving your neighbor as yourself.

Matthew 22
37 Jesus declared, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’e
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

So in light of the NT teaching on the OT law, we know that it never saved anyone and that it was incomplete until Jesus came and fulfilled it and revealed to us what it really meant.

The Law Never saved anyone

Romans 3-20
20. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

James 2-10
10. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So is the OT law still relative in God's eyes?? I personally do not see how it could be. However, this is where I see a big difference in the way some think about the bible, and has me wondering.

The OT was to the Jews mainly and God calls them "my people" many times all throughout the OT. And God spoke to the Jews in a way that seems to indicate that what he was saying was only for the Jews and it was an everlasting thing. An example of this is Jewish Statues and Law.

Leviticus 16:29
And this shall be a statute forever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country or a stranger that sojourneth among you:

Leviticus 16:31
It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute forever.

Leviticus 23:21
And ye shall proclaim on a selfsame day, that it may be a holy convocation unto you: ye shall do no servile work therein: it shall be a statute forever in all your dwellings throughout your generations.


So was he telling them to keep his OT statues forever as it seems plainly written, or was he only giving him the partial meaning of all this, and using all this to Point to Jesus Christ his son who would fulfill and reveal the full meaning of the law?

To me it seems the NT and Jesus coming is a fulfillment of the law meaning Jesus revealed its true purpose and reason for the Law, God said the law is forever Jesus does not contradict this, he just explains it in a way that the OT did not reveal.
The whole law hangs on Loving God with all you got, and your neighbor as yourself. It always been about that, but it was not understood until THe NT. So I have to conclude I personally do not think God sees the OT law relative today in the way it was written in the OT, but does see it relative today in the way Jesus explains it.

I see the big divide on this subject as a lot of people I talk with seem to think that the Jewish people are still under the law and it is relative in God's eyes. Yet we know that no one ever kept the law, and the law never saved anyone, so how can it be relative??

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Is the law still relative in God's eyes?

Especially in light of Luke 16,
To me, this says that John the Baptist is a time marker we can see where salvation comes into the light, and from that time forward salvation is to be preached.
However, the law has not passed away or vanished. Jesus seems to be saying heaven and earth will pass away before the law does.

Luke 16
16. The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the gospel of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.
17. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for a single stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law

I do not think we can fully understand what the law is if we just read the OT, the NT is what actually reveals the law's purpose and true meaning. In the NT we will find much scripture about the Law.


Jesus himself says he came not to abolish the law but fulfill the law.

Matthew 5-17
17. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

I have always wondered what fulfilled means in a way that I could relate to what is being said. I know he was the only one to keep the law fully and perfectly.
But I think it is more than that. I think it also means the true meaning of the law was never revealed until it was actually fulfilled. By Jesus fulfilling the law he shines a light on the true meaning and purpose of the law, which seems was never revealed in the OT. Jesus himself said the law

According to the scripture, The meaning of the law was to show us how sinful we truly are and how we could never earn our way to heaven. But it hangs on loving God with all your heart soul and mind and loving your neighbor as yourself.

Matthew 22
37 Jesus declared, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’e
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

So in light of the NT teaching on the OT law, we know that it never saved anyone and that it was incomplete until Jesus came and fulfilled it and revealed to us what it really meant.

The Law Never saved anyone

Romans 3-20
20. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

James 2-10
10. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So is the OT law still relative in God's eyes?? I personally do not see how it could be. However, this is where I see a big difference in the way some think about the bible, and has me wondering.

The OT was to the Jews mainly and God calls them "my people" many times all throughout the OT. And God spoke to the Jews in a way that seems to indicate that what he was saying was only for the Jews and it was an everlasting thing. An example of this is Jewish Statues and Law.

Leviticus 16:29
And this shall be a statute forever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country or a stranger that sojourneth among you:

Leviticus 16:31
It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute forever.

Leviticus 23:21
And ye shall proclaim on a selfsame day, that it may be a holy convocation unto you: ye shall do no servile work therein: it shall be a statute forever in all your dwellings throughout your generations.


So was he telling them to keep his OT statues forever as it seems plainly written, or was he only giving him the partial meaning of all this, and using all this to Point to Jesus Christ his son who would fulfill and reveal the full meaning of the law?

To me it seems the NT and Jesus coming is a fulfillment of the law meaning Jesus revealed its true purpose and reason for the Law, God said the law is forever Jesus does not contradict this, he just explains it in a way that the OT did not reveal.
The whole law hangs on Loving God with all you got, and your neighbor as yourself. It always been about that, but it was not understood until THe NT. So I have to conclude I personally do not think God sees the OT law relative today in the way it was written in the OT, but does see it relative today in the way Jesus explains it.

I see the big divide on this subject as a lot of people I talk with seem to think that the Jewish people are still under the law and it is relative in God's eyes. Yet we know that no one ever kept the law, and the law never saved anyone, so how can it be relative??

Modern Jews do not practice or are able to practice Temple Judaism. It has now changed to Rabbinic Judaism which is not The Law. Blessings.

Transition from "Temple Judaism" to "Rabbinic Judaism"

In reference to this comment on the Worldbuilding.SE question, "What educational resources could help someone who knows they will time travel to the future?": There is little resemblance between

judaism.stackexchange.com

 

[eleos1954]

"So is the OT law still relative in God's eyes?? I personally do not see how it could be. However, this is where I see a big difference in the way some think about the bible, and has me wondering."

Romans 2

12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but it is the doers of the law who will be declared righteous.

Without law God can not judge.

The law stands .... we will be declared righteous because of the blood of Jesus.

The law is written in everybody's heart (and always has been) .... how else can God judge rightly?

What Does the Bible Say About Written In Our Hearts?

 

[Jonaitis]

Is the Law still relative in God's eyes?

It most certainly is.

"For god has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the spirit."
- Romans 8:3-4

We are able to fulfill in us the righteous requirement of the law, according to the spirit, not according to the flesh; for the law has been written on our heart to walk in his commandments.

I do not think we can fully understand what the law is if we just read the OT, the NT is what actually reveals the law's purpose and true meaning. In the NT we will find much scripture about the Law.

Yes, the new testament helps us understand the proper interpretation, purpose, and use of the law.

I have always wondered what fulfilled means in a way that I could relate to what is being said. I know he was the only one to keep the law fully and perfectly. But I think it is more than that. I think it also means the true meaning of the law was never revealed until it was actually fulfilled. By Jesus fulfilling the law he shines a light on the true meaning and purpose of the law, which seems was never revealed in the OT.

I would say that he came to fulfill, not merely its commandments, but also the promises preached therein. He was the fulfillment of the covenant in more ways than obedience, just as he is the fulfillment of the writings and prophets.

According to the scripture, The meaning of the law was to show us how sinful we truly are and how we could never earn our way to heaven. But it hangs on loving God with all your heart soul and mind and loving your neighbor as yourself.

The law was a republication of the covenant of works. It could never impart life, even if someone were righteous. Jesus was able to earn eternal righteousness on account of the covenant of redemption, not on account of the old covenant, because the old covenant pertained not to eternal things, but earthly and carnal things (land, prosperity, abundant harvest, etc). A Jew could fully comply with the law in all that pertained to the enjoyments of that covenant and her promises, but in obeying it, it could not, nor was possible, to achieve anything more.

So is the OT law still relative in God's eyes?? I personally do not see how it could be. However, this is where I see a big difference in the way some think about the bible, and has me wondering.

We are not called to be antinomians, and this is clearly spelled out throughout the new testament.

The OT was to the Jews mainly and God calls them "my people" many times all throughout the OT. And God spoke to the Jews in a way that seems to indicate that what he was saying was only for the Jews and it was an everlasting thing. An example of this is Jewish Statues and Law.

The Jews were the carnal people of god, belonging to an external covenant that promised temporal blessings lasting from generation to generation (this is what is implied by 'everlasting').

Some have conflated what it means to be god's people under the old covenant and new covenant. When he says to them and to us, "I will be your god," it means only so far as the covenant is concerned. "He will be your god, O Jews, as your savior from your surrounding enemies and the one who prospers you in your passing life, if you draw near to him."

 

[Soyeong]

Is the law still relative in God's eyes?

Are you meaning to ask whether God's law is still relevant in His eyes? If, so, then yes, because all of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160).

Especially in light of Luke 16,
To me, this says that John the Baptist is a time marker we can see where salvation comes into the light, and from that time forward salvation is to be preached.
However, the law has not passed away or vanished. Jesus seems to be saying heaven and earth will pass away before the law does.

Luke 16
16. The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the gospel of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.
17. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for a single stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law

The Gospel of the Kingdom was made known in advance to Abraham (Galatians 3:8), so John the Baptist was not a marker of when salvation was started to be preached.

I do not think we can fully understand what the law is if we just read the OT, the NT is what actually reveals the law's purpose and true meaning. In the NT we will find much scripture about the Law.


Jesus himself says he came not to abolish the law but fulfill the law.

Matthew 5-17
17. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

I have always wondered what fulfilled means in a way that I could relate to what is being said. I know he was the only one to keep the law fully and perfectly.
But I think it is more than that. I think it also means the true meaning of the law was never revealed until it was actually fulfilled. By Jesus fulfilling the law he shines a light on the true meaning and purpose of the law, which seems was never revealed in the OT. Jesus himself said the law


Matthew 22
37 Jesus declared, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’e
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

"To fulfill the law" means "to cause God's will as made known in His law to be obeyed as it should be” (NAS Greek Lexicon pleroo 2c3). So fulfilling the law is not in regard to keeping it perfectly, but rather it is in regard to teaching its true purpose. The Talmud contains many examples discussions about how to fulfill the law in regard to the way to correctly obeying it, so it was not something that was never revealed in the OT. For example, in Luke 10:25-28 and Mark 10:28-34, Jesus affirmed others who recognizes the greatest two commandments, so that was not something that was not revealed until the NT.

According to the scripture, The meaning of the law was to show us how sinful we truly are and how we could never earn our way to heaven. But it hangs on loving God with all your heart soul and mind and loving your neighbor as yourself.

Nowhere does Scripture state that the meaning of the law is to show how we could never earn our way to heaven. God's law was never given as a means of earning our way to heaven even through perfect obedience (Romans 4:4-5), which is why there are many verses that speak against that fundamental misunderstanding of its goal.

All of God's other commandments hang on the greatest two commandments because they are all examples of what it means to correctly obey them.

So in light of the NT teaching on the OT law, we know that it never saved anyone and that it was incomplete until Jesus came and fulfilled it and revealed to us what it really meant.

The Law Never saved anyone

Romans 3-20
20. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

James 2-10
10. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is the transgressing of God's law (1 John 3:4), so while we do not earn our salvation as a wage by our obedience to it, living in obedience to it is nevertheless intrinsically part of the concept of Jesus saving us from not living in obedience to it. While Paul denied that we can earn our justification as a wage, he also said in Romans 2:13 that only doers of the law will be justified, so there must be reasons why our justification requires us to choose to be doers of the law other than for the goal of earning it as a wage, such as faith insofar as Romans 3:31 says that our faith upholds God's law.

In regard to Romans 3:20, in Acts 5:32, the Spirit has been given to those who obey God, so obedience to God is part of the way to receive the Spirit, however, in Galatians 3:1-2, it denies that works of the law are part of the way to receive the Spirit, therefore the phrase "works of the law" does not refer to obeying anything that has been commanded by God. In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, so works of the law are of works, while he said in Romans 3:31 that our faith upholds God's law, so it is of faith, and a law that our faith upholds can't be referring to the same thing as the works of the law that are not of faith in Galatians 3:10-11.

In regard to James 2:1-11, he was speaking to people who had already sinned by showing favoritism and he was encouraging them to repent and to do a better job of obeying it more consistently, which has nothing to do with making the point that they won't be saved by obeying it.

So is the OT law still relative in God's eyes?? I personally do not see how it could be. However, this is where I see a big difference in the way some think about the bible, and has me wondering.

The OT was to the Jews mainly and God calls them "my people" many times all throughout the OT. And God spoke to the Jews in a way that seems to indicate that what he was saying was only for the Jews and it was an everlasting thing. An example of this is Jewish Statues and Law.

Leviticus 16:29
And this shall be a statute forever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country or a stranger that sojourneth among you:

Leviticus 16:31
It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute forever.

Leviticus 23:21
And ye shall proclaim on a selfsame day, that it may be a holy convocation unto you: ye shall do no servile work therein: it shall be a statute forever in all your dwellings throughout your generations.


So was he telling them to keep his OT statues forever as it seems plainly written, or was he only giving him the partial meaning of all this, and using all this to Point to Jesus Christ his son who would fulfill and reveal the full meaning of the law?

In Exodus 12:38, there was a mixed multitude that went up out of Egypt with the Israelites so there were Gentiles at the foot of Sinai, and in Joshua 8:33, Israel was inclusive of both the foreigner and the native born, so there have always been righteous Gentiles who have chosen to become part of God's people. In 1 Peter 2:9-10, Gentiles are included as part of God's chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, and a treasure of God's own possession, which are all terms used to describe Israel (Deuteronomy 7:6).

God's law is how the children of Abraham knew how to live blessed lives (Psalms 119:1-3), so the way for them to inherit the promise through faith of being a blessing to the nations in accordance with the Gospel is by turning the nations from their wickedness and teaching them how to obey God's law. In Acts 3:25-26, Jesus was sent as the fulfillment of the promise to bless us by turning us from our wickedness. So God's law was given to the Jews to equip them to be a blessing to the nations by teaching them to obey it.

To me it seems the NT and Jesus coming is a fulfillment of the law meaning Jesus revealed its true purpose and reason for the Law, God said the law is forever Jesus does not contradict this, he just explains it in a way that the OT did not reveal.
The whole law hangs on Loving God with all you got, and your neighbor as yourself. It always been about that, but it was not understood until THe NT. So I have to conclude I personally do not think God sees the OT law relative today in the way it was written in the OT, but does see it relative today in the way Jesus explains it.

I see the big divide on this subject as a lot of people I talk with seem to think that the Jewish people are still under the law and it is relative in God's eyes. Yet we know that no one ever kept the law, and the law never saved anyone, so how can it be relative??

What is written in the OT was in complete accordance with how Jesus explained it, so I don't see a need to contrast the two. God is sovereign, so we are all still under His law and are obligated to obey it. In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, God's word says that His law is not too difficult to obey and that obedience brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! So it was presented as a possibility and as a choice, not as something that no one could ever keep. Furthermore, there are examples of people who did keep the law, such as those in Joshua 22:1-3, Luke 1:5-6, and Revelation 14:12.

In Hebrews 5:9, Jesus is a source of eternal salvation for those who obey him, so while the Bible speak again an incorrect goal of the law of earning our salvation as a wage, it does not speak against our salvation requiring us to choose to obey God's law for a correct goal. There can be any number of goals that someone could have for obeying God's law, such as in order to avoid hell, in order to enter heaven, in order to express their love for God, in order to express their faith in God, in order to develop godly character, in order to grow in a relationship with God, in order to bring about the restoration of the world, in order to look pious, or in order to earn our salvation. Some goals are correct while others are not and what was only said against incorrect goals should not be mistaken as speaking against correct goals. So even if God's law had nothing to do with sin or salvation, there could still be correct goals that someone could have for choosing to obey God, where God's law would still be eternally relevant.

 

[DaveM]

Are you meaning to ask whether God's law is still relevant in His eyes? If, so, then yes, because all of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160).

thanks for the well-thought-out reply,

may I ask what version of the law is still relevant?

What Jesus taught was much different than what Mosses taught. " An example of Jesus reveling the true law 4. The food laws that set Israel apart from the nations have been fulfilled and ended in Christ. Mark 7:18–19, “[Jesus] said to them, . . . ‘Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him?’ . . . (Thus he declared all foods clean.)”

 

[Soyeong]

thanks for the well-thought-out reply,

may I ask what version of the law is still relevant?

What Jesus taught was much different than what Mosses taught. " An example of Jesus reveling the true law 4. The food laws that set Israel apart from the nations have been fulfilled and ended in Christ. Mark 7:18–19, “[Jesus] said to them, . . . ‘Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him?’ . . . (Thus he declared all foods clean.)”

You're welcome.

Under the New Covenant, we are still under the same God with the same nature and therefore the same laws for how to act in accordance with His nature (Jeremiah 31:33). For example, God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), therefore any instructions that God has ever given for how to do what is righteous are eternally valid (Psalms 119:160). Likewise, sin was in the world before the law was given (Romans 5:13), 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 instance, it was sinful to commit adultery in Genesis 39:9, long before the Mosaic Covenant was made, during it, and after it has become obsolete, so there is nothing about any number of covenants being made or becoming obsolete that will ever change whether it is a sin to commit adultery, and if that were to ever change, then God's righteousness would not be eternal. In other words, God's law will never be updated to a different version where for example it is now righteous to commit adultery or eat unclean animals.

In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving law for how to have a holy conduct, which included refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45), so by following those laws we are acting in accordance with God's eternal holiness, and the only way to end those laws for how to have a holy conduct as God is holy would be for God to become no longer eternally holy.

In order to correctly obey the command to love our neighbor as ourselves we need to know how we should love ourselves. The answer to that is that we should love ourselves as Jesus loves us, so that is how we should love our neighbors. There is a huge difference between Jesus revealing how to truly obey the command to love our neighbors as ourselves as it was intended and setting aside what the Father has commanded in order to teach something different. In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law in contrast with saying that he did not come to abolish it, so fulfilling the law should not be interpreted as meaning the same thing as abolishing it. In Galatians 6:2, bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ, which does not refer to ending it, but rather it refers to correctly obeying it as it is intended. In Romans 15:18-19, Paul fulfilled the Gospel by teaching full obedience to it in word and in deed, not by ending it.

In Matthew 15:2-3, Jesus was asked about why his disciples did not follow the traditions for the elders and he responded by asking them why they broke the command of God for the sake of their tradition. In Matthew 15:6, Jesus said that for the sake of their tradition they made void the word of God. In Matthew 15:8-9, Jesus said that they worshiped God in vain because they taught as doctrine the commands of men. In Mark 7:6-9, Jesus said that they were hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish this own traditions, so in Mark 7:18-19, Jesus should not be interpreted as even more hypocritically turning about and doing what he just finished criticizing them as being hypocrites for doing.

The same Father who gave the law to Moses also sent Jesus, who set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to it, so there was no disagreement about which laws should be followed as Jesus were not one with the Father. In Galatians 4:4, Jesus was born under the law, so he was obligated to obey it, which includes obeying Deuteronomy 4:2, which prohibits adding to or subtracting from the law, so if he had taught something different, then he would have sinned and disqualified himself as being our Savior. Likewise, in Deuteronomy 13:1-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying His law, so Jesus did not do that. If Jesus had done that, then his critics would have for once had a legitimate reason to stone him and they would not have needed to find false witnesses at his trial, but this incident was never even brought up. Setting aside the commands of the God would have been a major doctrinal issue, not something relegated to a parenthetical side command, and it would have caused a major uproar, but no one even seemed to have noticed that he had made such a radical statement, and not even his disciples thought that he had ended God's dietary laws because Peter was still keeping them in Acts 10.

There are a number of translations that do not say "thus he declared all foods clean" primarily because there is no "thus he declared" in the Greek. However, even if it were granted that is a correct translation, it wouldn't mean that we can eat unclean animals. The things that are considered to be food vary from culture to culture, such as one culture might consider monkey brains to be food while another culture would never consider eating them as food. Likewise, eating things like bats, rats, vultures, and snakes is generally not comes to mind when we think about eating food. A cannibal should not interpret Mark 7:18-19 as saying that human flesh is good to eat, so when we have one Jew speaking to other Jews about food, we should consider them to be speaking about the things that they consider to be food, namely what God said is food in Leviticus 11, and should not insert what we consider to be food. Jews did not even raise pigs, so the thought of eating them would have never even crossed their mind, especially because the topic that they were discussing had nothing to do with eating unclean animals.

It is far more reasonable to think that Jesus was simply continuing to speak about the same topic that he had been discussing earlier in the chapter in regard to a tradition of the elders of being made common by eating with unwashed hands. In Matthew 15:20, Jesus said that we are not made common by eating with unwashed hands, so he never jumped topics to speaking against obeying what the Father has commanded. The word that is translated as "defile" is not used interchangeably with the Greek word that is used in regard to eating unclean animals, but rather it is specifically used within the context of the traditions of the elders.

 

[fhansen]

Is the law still relative in God's eyes?

Especially in light of Luke 16,
To me, this says that John the Baptist is a time marker we can see where salvation comes into the light, and from that time forward salvation is to be preached.
However, the law has not passed away or vanished. Jesus seems to be saying heaven and earth will pass away before the law does.

Luke 16
16. The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the gospel of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.
17. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for a single stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law

I do not think we can fully understand what the law is if we just read the OT, the NT is what actually reveals the law's purpose and true meaning. In the NT we will find much scripture about the Law.


Jesus himself says he came not to abolish the law but fulfill the law.

Matthew 5-17
17. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

I have always wondered what fulfilled means in a way that I could relate to what is being said. I know he was the only one to keep the law fully and perfectly.
But I think it is more than that. I think it also means the true meaning of the law was never revealed until it was actually fulfilled. By Jesus fulfilling the law he shines a light on the true meaning and purpose of the law, which seems was never revealed in the OT. Jesus himself said the law

According to the scripture, The meaning of the law was to show us how sinful we truly are and how we could never earn our way to heaven. But it hangs on loving God with all your heart soul and mind and loving your neighbor as yourself.

Matthew 22
37 Jesus declared, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’e
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

So in light of the NT teaching on the OT law, we know that it never saved anyone and that it was incomplete until Jesus came and fulfilled it and revealed to us what it really meant.

The Law Never saved anyone

Romans 3-20
20. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

James 2-10
10. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So is the OT law still relative in God's eyes?? I personally do not see how it could be. However, this is where I see a big difference in the way some think about the bible, and has me wondering.

The OT was to the Jews mainly and God calls them "my people" many times all throughout the OT. And God spoke to the Jews in a way that seems to indicate that what he was saying was only for the Jews and it was an everlasting thing. An example of this is Jewish Statues and Law.

Leviticus 16:29
And this shall be a statute forever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country or a stranger that sojourneth among you:

Leviticus 16:31
It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute forever.

Leviticus 23:21
And ye shall proclaim on a selfsame day, that it may be a holy convocation unto you: ye shall do no servile work therein: it shall be a statute forever in all your dwellings throughout your generations.


So was he telling them to keep his OT statues forever as it seems plainly written, or was he only giving him the partial meaning of all this, and using all this to Point to Jesus Christ his son who would fulfill and reveal the full meaning of the law?

To me it seems the NT and Jesus coming is a fulfillment of the law meaning Jesus revealed its true purpose and reason for the Law, God said the law is forever Jesus does not contradict this, he just explains it in a way that the OT did not reveal.
The whole law hangs on Loving God with all you got, and your neighbor as yourself. It always been about that, but it was not understood until THe NT. So I have to conclude I personally do not think God sees the OT law relative today in the way it was written in the OT, but does see it relative today in the way Jesus explains it.

I see the big divide on this subject as a lot of people I talk with seem to think that the Jewish people are still under the law and it is relative in God's eyes. Yet we know that no one ever kept the law, and the law never saved anyone, so how can it be relative??

The law is right, holy, spiritual, and good as Rom 7 tells us. Man is the problem. As Augustine put it,
“God wrote on tablets of stone that which man failed to read in his heart.”

Man cannot fullfil the righteous requirements of the law (Rom 8:4)on his own, and he’s born “on his own”: dead, alienated and apart from God and therefore in a state of disorder, injustice. Only God can rectify this, only God can justify man. By the law no one will be justified; the law only tells us what justice or righteousness looks like. So the basis of the new covenant, that which distinguishes it from the old, is communion with God first of all. This occurs as we turn to Him in faith as He calls us by His grace. Faith makes God our God again, and this is the reason Jesus came. From there, God, as He becomes our God, puts His law in our minds and writes it on our hearts (Jer 31:33-34). He gives us the Spirit so we can be who we were created to be, overcoming the sin that separated us from Him.

 

[Soyeong]

The law is right, holy, spiritual, and good as Rom 7 tells us. Man is the problem. As Augustine put it,
“God wrote on tablets of stone that which man failed to read in his heart.”

Man cannot fullfil the righteous requirements of the law (Rom 8:4)on his own, and he’s born “on his own”: dead, alienated and apart from God and therefore in a state of disorder, injustice. Only God can rectify this, only God can justify man. By the law no one will be justified; the law only tells us what justice or righteousness looks like. So the basis of the new covenant, that which distinguishes it from the old, is communion with God first of all. This occurs as we turn to Him in faith as He calls us by His grace. Faith makes God our God again, and this is the reason Jesus came. From there, God, as He becomes our God, puts His law in our minds and writes it on our hearts (Jer 31:33-34). He gives us the Spirit so we can be who we were created to be, overcoming the sin that separated us from Him.

God is trustworthy, therefore His law is also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7), so to rely on God's law for salvation is the way to rely on God for salvation, and obeying God's law on our own is self-contradictory. It is not as though the concepts of communion with God, faith, and grace didn't exist until the NT, but rather they are part of the OT. For example, in Psalms 119:29-30, David wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, and he chose the way of faithfulness.

 

[fhansen]

God is trustworthy, therefore His law is also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7), so to rely on God's law for salvation is the way to rely on God for salvation, and obeying God's law on our own is self-contradictory. It is not as though the concepts of communion with God, faith, and grace didn't exist until the NT, but rather they are part of the OT. For example, in Psalms 119:29-30, David wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, and he chose the way of faithfulness.

But we don't rely on the law now to please God and satisfy His requirements of us . Rather we rely on God now in order to be able to fulfill the law, and therefore satisfy His requirements of us. That's the meaning of Phil 3:9, for example:
"...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith."

And that's the difference between living by the Spirit and living by the Letter. If this was possible in the OT it's only with the advent of Christ that it becomes possible on a broad or universal scale for all humankind. Presumably, Christ's coming in the fullness of time meant that man was finally ready, even if just barely, to begin to receive the full-true light. Otherwise Paul would've been doing just fine as a Pharisee, in terms of fulfillng the law and pleasing God.

 

[Soyeong]

But we don't rely on the law now to please God and satisfy His requirements of us . Rather we rely on God now in order to be able to fulfill the law, and therefore satisfy His requirements of us. That's the meaning of Phil 3:9, for example:
"...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith."

And that's the difference between living by the Spirit and living by the Letter. If this was possible in the OT it's only with the advent of Christ that it becomes possible on a broad or universal scale for all humankind. Presumably, Christ's coming in the fullness of time meant that man was finally ready, even if just barely, to begin to receive the full-true light. Otherwise Paul would've been doing just fine as a Pharisee, in terms of fulfillng the law and pleasing God.

It is contradictory to think that we should rely on God instead of relying on what He has instructed.

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 knowing Jesus is the goal of the law. In Romans 9:30-10:4, the Israelites had a zeal for God, but it was not based on knowing Him, so they failed to attain righteousness because they pursued the law as through righteousness were by works in an effort to establish their own instead of pursuing the law as through righteousness were by faith in Christ, for Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness for everyone who has faith. In Philippians 3:8-9, Paul had been in the same boat where he had been keeping the law, but without having a focus on knowing Christ, so he had been missing the whole goal of the law and counted it all as rubbish. In Romans 3:31, Paul said that our faith does not abolish God's law, but rather our faith upholds it, so he was not contrasting a manner of living that is in obedience to God's law with a manner of living that was not in obedience to God's law, but by faith instead, rather he was contrasting an incorrect manner of living in obedience to God's law with a correct manner of living in obedience to it.

Likewise the difference between following the letter of the law or the spirit of the law is not contrasting living in obedience to it with some other manner of living, but rather it is contrasting an incorrect manner of obeying it with a correct manner. For example, 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 they were obeying it in an incorrect manner. Justice, mercy, and faithfulness are aspects of God's nature and fruits of the Spirit that His law is intended to teach us how to express, and it is through expressing aspects of God's nature that we come to know Him and Jesus, who is the exact image of God's nature (Hebrews 1:3), which is eternal life (John 17:3). In other words, Paul had been obeying the law while neglecting to express aspects of God's nature that are the way to know Christ, which is the goal of the law, so he counted it all as rubbish, and the correct solution was not to live by faith instead of obeying the law, but to obey the law by faith.

 

[fhansen]

It is contradictory to think that we should rely on God instead of relying on what He has instructed.

I'm not so sure. There must be a difference. Surely Paul as a Pharisee thought he was relying on what God instructed. The difference is that he relied on himself to accomplish the obedience-and that still amounts to legalism-because man has no righteousness within himself with which to motivate him towards right action. The one who acknowledges that they lack the righteousness to fulfill the law, that they are sinners, are now in a proper position of humility before God. They understand their need for Him first of all, rather than their need to prove their holiness/righteousness first of all-which breeds pride= the fault of the Pharisee’s.

Never before in the history of the world could man come to know God to the degree and depth that he could once he encountered Christ. And that God is a God of love who desires us to love as He does, and that love fulfills the law by its nature while defining righteousness for man which is why the greatest commandments are what they are. Did the Pharisees love God and man in that way? We can fulfill the law by the letter without that love-but the law still wouldn’t be fulfilled in reality. Here’s the difference:

“But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.” Rom 3:21-22

The error of certain Reformed theologies is in thinking that faith does away with the need to fulfill the law, the obligation to possess personal righteousness and act accordingly IOW. The historic church taught that God, alone, can give man that righteousness -and then he must live by it, as children of God should. Adam had thought otherwise-that he didn’t need God; he could do better on his own rather than heeding Him- and by his subsequent act of disobedience he alienated man from God. Through Christ we’re reconciled with Him again, as we now come to truly know and bow before Him instead, as our God, in faith, completed by hope and love.

 

[Yekcidmij]

I'm not so sure. There must be a difference. Surely Paul as a Pharisee thought he was relying on what God instructed.

Did Paul ever stop being a Pharisee? And I mean "Pharisee" in the historical sense - not in the sense where "Pharisee" = "icky bad guy."

Recall in the early church there were Pharisees and priests who were believers, appareently without seeing a problem between being a Pharisee or priest and belief in Jesus. A few we may know by name (eg, Nicodemus)

Acts 6:7 "...and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith."
Acts 15:5 "But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed..."
Acts 23:6 "But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, "Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!"

 

[fhansen]

Did Paul ever stop being a Pharisee? And I mean "Pharisee" in the historical sense - not in the sense where "Pharisee" = "icky bad guy."

Recall in the early church there were Pharisees and priests who were believers, appareently without seeing a problem between being a Pharisee or priest and belief in Jesus. A few we may know by name (eg, Nicodemus)

Acts 6:7 "...and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith."
Acts 15:5 "But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed..."
Acts 23:6 "But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, "Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!"

And yet when we read Phil 3, where Paul speaks of his former position as garbage, he goes on in 3:9 to speak about the difference now:
"...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith."

 

[Aaron112]

When did Jesus say that the Pharisees would enter the Kingdom of Heaven ?

 

[fhansen]

When did Jesus say that the Pharisees would enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

Going by Matt 5:20 I'm not sure that they necessarily will, speaking generally- as I assume Jesus was.

 

[Yekcidmij]

And yet when we read Phil 3, where Paul speaks of his former position as garbage, he goes on in 3:9 to speak about the difference now:
"...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith."

The Jewish work 4 Ezra (also known by 2 Esdras) says something similar about the law not being able to redeem the sinner (4 Ezra 7:116-131, 9:36), but its author presumably remained Jewish. So I'm still not sure your quote of Paul here helps your case, and seems to support my point that Paul was a Pharisee and this is reflected in his theology.

 

[fhansen]

The Jewish work 4 Ezra (also known by 2 Esdras) says something similar about the law not being able to redeem the sinner (4 Ezra 7:116-131, 9:36), but its author presumably remained Jewish. So I'm still not sure your quote of Paul here helps your case, and seems to support my point that Paul was a Pharisee and this is reflected in his theology.

Well, it's been historically understood that Paul experienced a very extreme conversion on the road to Damascus. Sort of upset whatever cart he was pulling before that. And in Matt 23 Jesus castigated certain Pharisees for their hypocrisy, being clean on the outside while still filthy on the inside. As Scripture attests, mere law-abiding isn't what God is after in us, but rather a true righteousness, one that exceeds external obedience, one that comes from being clean on the inside first of all, one that comes striclty from God as we enter into His sonship, via faith. The law is good, as Paul reminds us in Rom 7, but can't accomplish the righteousness in us that it attests to (Rom 3:21). Only God can do that.

And Jesus remained Jewish as far as I know. He just explained and fulfilled that religion to the fullest and most accurate degree possible.

 

[ralliann]

The Jewish work 4 Ezra (also known by 2 Esdras) says something similar about the law not being able to redeem the sinner (4 Ezra 7:116-131, 9:36), but its author presumably remained Jewish. So I'm still not sure your quote of Paul here helps your case, and seems to support my point that Paul was a Pharisee and this is reflected in his theology.

Yeah, he was preaching the resurrection. The Sadducees rejected that. It was a major difference between the two sects. The apostles and Paul were follwers of the way which Jon prepared and taught. He was no Pharisee.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Yeah, he was preaching the resurrection. The Sadducees rejected that. It was a major difference between the two sects. The apostles and Paul were follwers of the way which Jon prepared and taught. He was no Pharisee.

So he was lying when he said he was a Pharisee in 23:6?