We would like to address an incredible yet oft-misunderstood passage of Paul’s writing — Romans 7 and 8. The lack of understanding among Christians of these crucial chapters is not only a poor reflection on society at large — but it is probably one of the greatest causes of the humanist hell which Christians now find ourselves in. However, this also means that a correct understanding — thankfully — could just be a powerful antidote to the psychological poison our minds have been baptized into since birth.
ROMANS 3 – 6
First — before diving into Romans 7, let’s briefly establish its context. Each chapter in the book of Romans naturally builds upon the argument Paul puts forward — therefore it would not be wise to dive into Romans 7 without considering where it falls within Paul’s larger argument. In Romans 3-5, Paul explains how the Law was incapable of bringing about righteousness — despite a need to “establish the Law” (Romans 3:31). In doing so, he makes an argument for — and lays the foundation for — the “righteousness of faith” (Romans 4:13).
Paul said that “through the Law comes knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20). John agrees when he says, “sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4). Moses said that “it will be righteousness for us if we are careful to follow all this commandment before the Lord our God” (Deuteronomy 6:25) — confirming that keeping the Law makes us righteous. Even 1 John 3:4-6 says,
4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. 6 No one who remains in Him sins continually; no one who sins continually has seen Him or knows Him.
John establishes that we must keep the Law, else we are sinners — and then proceeds to create a contradistinction between practicing the sin of lawlessness (1 John 3:4) — the result of being “of the devil” (1 John 3:8) — and practicing righteousness (1 John 3:7) — the result of being “born of God” (1 John 3:9).
How then can Paul make a seemingly self-contradicting argument for the righteousness of faith, when righteousness clearly comes from keeping the Law — or not sinning? Paul leaves us with quite a paradox — something which causes many to stumble over his writings just as Peter describes, “there are some things that are hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16)
Paul’s argument in Romans 3 begins by observing that all failed to attain to the righteousness of the Law. He emphasizes that even those who had “circumcision” — who maintained the works of the Law — were nevertheless still under sin (Romans 3:9). Therefore, the Law was not able to help those who were given the Law to actually keep the Law, just as Hebrews 7:19 tells us, “the Law made nothing perfect.”
In other words, even those who had the Law in written form — with supposedly clear instructions — were unable to keep it properly. As with all of Paul’s writings, his point here on a logical level is completely irrefutable.
To word this conclusion another way, when Paul says, “if a law had been given that was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law” (Galatians 3:21), he is making a very nuanced point — because righteousness is based on the Law. However, the Law itself cannot make anyone keep the Law — and so no righteousness can come from the Law itself. If only the Law were able to make one keep the Law, then righteousness would indeed be based on the Law. However — as we will see, that which brings righteousness — faith in the Lord Jesus — is that which makes us keep the Law — and makes us righteous.
If a superficial reading of the Law — or even Paul’s writings — were enough to keep the Law, God would not have said to Joshua, “you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it” (Joshua 1:8). Likewise, Psalm 1:2 says, “But his delight is in the Law of the Lord, and on His Law he meditates day and night.” And so if anyone thought they could apply the Law after a superficial reading, they have failed to take into account what the Law and Prophets teaches about itself.
Where Paul says that “apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets” (Romans 3:21), he affirms another seeming paradox — that there is a righteousness apart from the Law which is found in the Law itself. He defines that Law as “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” (Romans 3:22). According to Peter, the outcome of our faith is the very salvation of our souls (1 Peter 1:9) — in full agreement with Paul.
We see the Lord Jesus saying the exact same thing in His conversation with Nicodemus — attesting that this faith was witnessed to within the Law and Prophets itself when He said, “You are the teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things?” (John 3:10) The Lord confirms the same righteousness Paul mentioned when He says, “so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes will have eternal life in Him” (John 3:14-15) — in other words, the “righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ.”
Deuteronomy 10:16 says, “circumcise your heart, and do not stiffen your neck any longer.” Therefore, an Israelite may be circumcised according to the flesh, yet remain stiff-necked — with an uncircumcised heart. Paul says that those who are circumcised according to the flesh — yet violate the Law — have their circumcision “turned into uncircumcision.” (Romans 2:25) Again, Paul was completely correct according to the Law.
Yet the sacrifices according to the Levitical ordinances were supposed to atone for the people’s sin — thereby making them righteous. But David said in Psalm 51:16-17,
16 For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it; You do not take pleasure in burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, God, You will not despise.
A broken and contrite heart is the opposite of being stiff-necked. Once again, Paul was correct according to the Law and the Prophets. Israel had no recourse through works of the Law to bring about righteousness according to the Law. God despised physical circumcision and sin offerings in the face of a stubborn, sinful heart. In light of all Israel being consigned to sin (Romans 3:9), there was no justification for Israel.
As long as they could not stop sinning — being uncircumcised of heart (Romans 2:25) — there was no work of the Law — whether sacrifices or circumcision — which could atone for their sin. Yet Paul says, “while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). Despite Israel’s completely lost and fallen state, God justified Israel “as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:24).
Therefore, there was no work or anything anyone could have done to bring about this justification. Israel — and even ourselves — started off in a colossal debt of sin with no way out. Thus it was “to demonstrate His righteousness, because in God’s merciful restraint He let the sins previously committed go unpunished” (Romans 3:25). If only we believe in — and have faith in — the work the Lord Jesus did for us — atoning for our sin — we could consider it all written off.
If all of our past sin may go unpunished and through forgiveness we are blameless according to the Law, then through faith we have achieved blamelessness. We have attained the righteousness according to the Law, because none of the sin of the Law is counted against us. Just as Paul quoted Psalm 31:1-2 in Romans 4:7-8,
7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, And whose sins have been covered. 8 Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.”
David continues to say in Psalm 31:5,
I said, “I will confess my wrongdoings to the Lord”; and You forgave the guilt of my sin.
Then in verse 10-11,
10 …But the one who trusts in the Lord, goodness will surround him. 11 Be glad in the Lord and rejoice, you righteous ones…
This confirms Paul’s point — using David’s practical example — that those who are forgiven through faith are accounted as righteous before the Lord. In Romans 4 Paul goes on to explain — using the Abrahamic covenant — how the righteousness of faith in Christ Jesus applies to all the Genesis 10 nations. And in Romans 5 he elaborates further on the graciousness of our justification through the death of the Lord Jesus.
The book of Hebrews explains how the gracious work of the Lord — in which we have faith according to Paul’s argument in Romans — was actually a fulfillment of the law of sin offering — that is, “where there is forgiveness of these things, an offering for sin is no longer required.” (Hebrews 10:18) While Hebrews 10:22 literally refers to that faith in saying, “let’s approach God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith,” Hebrews 10:26-31 goes on to say,
26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has ignored the Law of Moses is put to death without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severe punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
After explaining how we are forgiven by faith in the work of the Lord Jesus, Hebrews warns us that if we go on sinning willfully it’s even worse than than if we died according to the Law of Moses. This lines up perfectly where Paul writes, “He let the sins previously committed go unpunished” (Romans 3:25). Paul even explicitly said in Romans 3:31,
Do we then nullify the Law through faith? Far from it! On the contrary, we establish the Law.
Paul tells us that the Law cannot be nullified through faith — that we must still uphold and establish the Law. While Christ Jesus — according to the Law — justified us for our sin and wrote it off, if we continue to sin, there no longer remains a sacrifice for us. Therefore, the aforementioned paradox has not yet been resolved. If we are forgiven by faith and continue to sin, the Law still stands against us. We do not attain to the righteousness of the Law and lose the righteousness of faith. Paul confirms this in Romans 6:1-2,
1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2 Far from it! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
Over the course of Romans 6, Paul explains why the righteousness of faith must necessarily result in cessation from sin — he is very aware of the error we could be prone to make in light of his argument — so aware, in fact, that he keeps reassuring his readers to stay away from that error — just like in Romans 6:15,
What then? Are we to sin because we are not under the Law but under grace? Far from it!
At this point, he has reassured us that faith is no excuse to contradict the Law three times (Romans 3:31, Romans 6:1-2, and Romans 6:15). Paul says that “sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under the Law but under grace.” (Romans 6:14) Indeed, after having been redeemed from the Law — and its condemnation through grace — if we continue to commit Lawlessness, we place ourselves back under the Law! Paul explicitly said, “law is not made for a righteous person but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners” (1 Timothy 1:9).
Many Christians imagine that because we are not under the Law that sin — somehow — has disappeared. Yet Paul said, “for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” (Romans 5:13) Yes, sin exists outside of the Law — and we can indeed sin even while not “under the Law.” If we sin outside of the Law, then that sin is still sin — but it is just not imputed or charged against us. The Law was “added on account of the violations” (Galatians 3:19) which were already in the world — because “through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:20) In other words, the Law is the prism through which we are able to see sin — but even if we remove that prism, the sin is not removed.
Therefore, if we continue to sin, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 10:26). We have thereby removed ourselves from grace — having “insulted the Spirit of grace” (Hebrews 10:29) — and place ourselves back under the condemnation of the Law. Not being under the Law applies only insofar as we do not contradict the Law — because the law is for the lawless (1 Timothy 1:9). Paul says in Romans 6:19,
19… For just as you presented the parts of your body as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your body’s parts as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification. 20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in relation to righteousness.
Paul contrasts impurity and lawlessness with a righteousness which results in sanctification. Therefore, being a slave to righteousness according to faith means not committing lawlessness. As if this point were not clear enough, Paul states that being a slave of sin means being “free in relation to righteousness” — which is to say, “having no righteousness to speak of.” In other words, if one is a sinner, they are not righteous. When we willfully sin, we remove ourselves from the righteousness of faith in the gracious gift of the Lord Jesus. Conversely, if we continue under grace, we cease from sin.
Therefore, if we continue under grace and cease from sin, we automatically attain to the righteousness of the Law — because “sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4). Skipping ahead somewhat, Paul concludes in Romans 8:4 that “the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us.” We will elaborate in another section, but suffice to say for now that according to Paul, it is still necessary for the requirement of the Law to be fulfilled. To hammer home this point, Paul says in Romans 6:22,
But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life.
Remember that Paul contrasted lawlessness with being “slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.” (Romans 6:19) Here Paul further clarifies that being “freed from sin and enslaved to God” results in sanctification. Again, he has equated not sinning with sanctification. Furthermore, without that sanctification we cannot have the outcome — eternal life. Hebrews 10 which we referred to earlier also attests to this truth in verses 14-17,
14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. 15 And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, 16 “This is the covenant which I will make with them After those days, declares the Lord: I will put My laws upon their hearts, And write them on their mind,” He then says, 17 “And their sins and their lawless deeds I will no longer remember.”
The Lord Jesus perfected those who have the righteousness according to faith, because they have faith in His promises to them. Recall also how John said, “He appeared in order to take away sins” (1 John 3:5). They have faith in the promise to have the law written on their hearts, which means they do not contradict the law. Conversely, if someone does not have the law on their hearts, they will contradict the law.
ROMANS 7 — THE DEATH AND REMARRIAGE
Context having been established, let us dive right in with Romans 7:1-3,
1 Or do you not know, brothers and sisters (for I am speaking to those who know the Law), that the Law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? 2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he is alive; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3 So then, if while her husband is alive she gives herself to another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress if she gives herself to another man.
Paul proposes a rather simple principle here — a woman may not take another husband unless her husband has died. The act of giving herself to another man while the current husband still lives would be adultery. Leviticus 20:10 says,
If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
According to this passage, the penalty for being “called an adulteress” (Romans 7:3) according to the Law is death. If a woman’s husband dies, she is released from the law of Leviticus 20:10. Giving herself to another man would not result in the death penalty. Verse 4 continues,
Therefore, my brethren, you also were put to death in regard to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might belong to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.
First — staying with the husband and wife analogy — Paul proposes that the Christian Israelite believer is the wife. He then places the wife’s current husband as the Law — because in Paul’s argument, the woman needed to die “in regard to the Law.” In a way, Israel’s relationship with the old covenant was very much like a husband-wife relationship. Jeremiah 31:32 says,
“… not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord.
Just like a marriage, the old covenant was a bi-directional relationship. The Lord faithfully fulfilled His end of the relationship — blessing Israel when they obeyed Him and punishing them to bring them back to Himself when they were disobedient. However, Paul makes it clear that Israel’s covenant was with the Law — a “guardian to lead us to Christ” (Galatians 3:24) — despite the Lord’s husband-like faithfulness to it. In other words, though the prophets compare the old covenant with marriage, Israel was never married to Yahweh Himself. On the contrary, Israel’s covenant was with the Law. Exodus 24:3-4,7-8 says,
3 Then Moses came and reported to the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do!” 4 And Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord… 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it as the people listened; and they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!” 8 So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”
The old covenant was very clearly based on “all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances” — the Law. Israel committed to the covenant by promising to keep the Law. Thus showing again that Israel were “married” to the Law. To reaffirm this point, Hebrews 9:19-20 says,
19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.”
Yet in this analogy, Paul states that in this dynamic it was not the Lord Jesus who had to die — rather, it was Israel who had to die. He said that “you also were put to death in regard to the Law through the body of Christ.” When he says this, he is merely continuing his argument from Romans 6:2-7, where he explains we are to die with Christ Jesus. Verses 6-7 say,
6 … our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7 for the one who has died is freed from sin.
Israel needed to die so that they — along with the Genesis 10 nations — could “belong to another, to Him who was raised from the dead.” (Romans 7:4) All who set their faith and hope on the Lord Jesus are crucified with Him, thus releasing Israel from being under the old covenant of the Law. All would join under the new covenant of the Lord Jesus’ blood — being betrothed to Him personally. Israel move from the old covenant with the Law to the new covenant with Christ Jesus Himself.
Indeed, Paul says in Ephesians 5:30-32,
30 because we are parts of His body. 31 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.
Paul quoted Genesis 2:24, a creation event which happened on the sixth creation day — as the Lord connects Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 as part of the same event — on the sixth day of creation — in Mark 10:6-8. So in Ephesians 5:31-32 Paul is referring to an event which is already done, but he calls it a “mystery”. We can see the same kind of logic in Hebrews 4:3-4, where the author refers to the Sabbath as something which still needs to happen, despite it having already happened in the creation account.
Just as the Sabbath still needs to happen according to the author of Hebrews, the marriage event of Genesis 2:24 still needs to happen according to Paul in Ephesians 5:31-32. In Romans 7 Paul is referring to the ongoing fulfillment of that very marriage event — culminating in Revelation 21:2, “And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” Therefore, we must have died to the Law that we may become a part of the body of Christ.
Now we must make a critical stipulation here, as many Christian circles stumble over this concept of Israel being released from the old covenant of the Law. Remember, Paul affirmed the Law three times (Romans 3:31, Romans 6:1-2, Romans 6:15). Just because Israel were no longer under the old covenant of the Law does not remove sin from the world. Paul said that “until the Law sin was in the world” (Romans 5:13) and that “through the Law comes knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:20)
Sin was in the world before the Law — and sin is still in the world. The Law is still the way to identify that sin — regardless of whether Israel are under the old covenant of the Law or not — because sin still exists. Release from the old covenant was not a way to absolve Israel from the responsibility of sin. “The Law made nothing perfect” (Hebrews 7:19) — so the Law wasn’t actually able to keep Israel from sin — despite being the way to identify sin. Hebrews 8:7 says,
For if that first covenant had been free of fault, no circumstances would have been sought for a second.
Verily, Israel needed not only to be able to identify sin, but also to receive the power to stop sinning — they needed a better covenant. And so the Lord Jesus became the “mediator of a better covenant” (Hebrews 8:6) — Who said, “This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant in My blood.” (Luke 22:20) Hebrews 8:9-12 quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34,
9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers On the day I took them by the hand To bring them out of the land of Egypt; For they did not continue in My covenant, And I did not care about them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put My laws into their minds, And write them on their hearts. And I will be their God, And they shall be My people. 11 And they will not teach, each one his fellow citizen, and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful toward their wrongdoings, and their sins I will no longer remember.”
So the Hebrews author concludes in verse 13,
When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is about to disappear.
ROMANS 7 — THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW
Romans 7:5-6 continues,
5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were brought to light by the Law, were at work in the parts of our body to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
Here Paul introduces two new concepts to his argument — “the flesh” and “the Spirit.” He connects the idea of the flesh with that part of us which was crucified with the Lord Jesus. The flesh contains “the sinful passions” — sin proceeds from the flesh — and it bears fruit for death — “for the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). Paul tells us it was the law itself which “brought to light” that sin, because “sin is lawlessness.” (1 John 3:4)
Then Paul tells us what the natural result of being released from the Law and dying to the flesh needs to be — to “serve in newness of the Spirit.” As he concluded already in Romans 6, “dying to the flesh” means no longer sinning. Therefore, serving “in newness of the Spirit” also means no longer sinning — or no longer contradicting the Law.
Skipping ahead somewhat, Paul says in verse 14, “For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am fleshly.” Herein lies a key problem between the Law and the flesh — even the reason why the law is so at odds with the flesh. If the law is Spiritual, how could the flesh have perceived it in the first place? Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2:14,
But a natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Yet Paul created another distinction within the Law itself — the “newness of the Spirit” and the “oldness of the letter.” The law is Spiritual — and we are to serve in the newness of the Spirit — but what does that mean? The first and most obvious observation we can make is that the “oldness of the letter” represents what we are free from — whereas the “newness of the Spirit” represents what we are now bound to — the part of the Law which is spiritual.
Furthermore, we find the most vivid explanation of the spirit of the Law in Hebrews 7-10 — which explains how the Aaronic priesthood — according to the tribe of Levi — was replaced by the priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek. Hebrews tells us that the law changed along with the law of the priesthood — “For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.” (Hebrews 7:12)
After all, the laws of priesthood say nothing of a priest according to the order of Melchizedek; therefore, the law must necessarily change with a changing of the priesthood. Moreover, everyone in the Kingdom of God will be priests according to 1 Peter 2:5. Indeed, all Israel were supposed to be priests according to Exodus 19:6. In each case, the law and prophets attested to the change. Hebrews explains the priesthood of Melchizedek in detail — and Exodus 19:6 already attested to all being priests as we mentioned.
At the same time, the Lord says in Matthew 5:17-18,
17 “Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished!
In other words, the law cannot be abolished by a “change of the law” (Hebrews 7:12) — what a paradox! However, as we have explained in the case of us all being priests — and as the Hebrews author explained in the case of the priesthood according to Melchizedek — the Law and Prophets themselves attest to the changing of the Law. Therefore, the changing of the Law happens within the confines of the Law — the Law is able to change without an abolishment of the Law.
Herein lies the answer to the difference between the “oldness of the letter” and the “newness of the Spirit.” The law changed from the letter to the Spirit — so us having died to the letter and having moved into the spirit also represents a change in the Law itself without abolishing the Law. The Hebrews author states rather plainly how this applies in the context of the priests and the tabernacle to which he refers in Hebrews 8:3-5,
3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer. 4 Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; 5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “See,” He says, “that you make all things by the pattern which was shown to you on the mountain.”
The writer states that the old high priesthood was merely a “copy and shadow of the heavenly things” — indicating that the earthly existence of the high priesthood was only a weak representation of the heavenly high priesthood. Much the same way a shadow is a weak representation of whatever has cast that shadow. The author reiterates that the law “has only a shadow [the letter] of the good things to come and not the form of those things itself [the spirit]” (Hebrews 10:1).
As a part of this whole argument, the author explains how the earthly priesthood represented the Lord Jesus who entered into the holy place in “heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us” (Hebrews 9:24) and “put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” (Hebrews 9:26) Therefore, the law moved from an earthly shadow to a heavenly fulfillment. In other words, the law changed without the law being done away. Indeed, the Lord Jesus fulfilled the law — He did not abolish it (Matthew 5:17).
However, we must pay careful attention to how the heavenly fulfills the shadow — especially using the Lord Jesus’ fulfillment of the sin offering as an example. Many Christian circles believe that when the Lord Jesus “put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself” (Hebrews 9:26), that He took the place of the animal sacrifices performed by the Levitical priesthood. In other words, many Christians view the Lord Jesus as perpetually fulfilling the animal sin offering laws.
This erroneous idea encapsulates the faulty theological framework on which concepts like “once saved always saved”, “salvation by race” or “salvation by grace” rest. The idea is that if animal sacrifices literally take away sin — and if the Lord Jesus perpetually fulfills the law of animal sin offering — then all of my sin is never counted against me — because the High Priest perpetually atones for my sin. This doctrine fails to take into account one vital principle — the law of animal sin offering is just a shadow.
The law of animal sin offering could never have taken away sin, as Hebrews 10:8 quotes Psalm 40:6 saying, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and offerings for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them“. The law of animal sin offering was a shadow of a future event — the death of something perfect which would literally take away our sins. Yes, the shedding of the Lord Jesus’ blood literally takes away our sin. Not in a superficial kind of way like those who offered animals and continued to sin — but in great glory and power, the Lord Jesus causes us to cease from sin by His sacrifice.
As Hebrews 10:9 states, “He takes away the first in order to establish the second.” Indeed, the law of animal sin offering has been completely removed — it no longer applies in any way whatsoever. “For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified” (Hebrews 10:14) by placing His “laws upon their hearts” and writing them “on their mind” (Hebrews 10:16). Note how the heavenly fulfillment is practical — it actually achieves that which the shadow represented — the cessation of sin.
By the example we show that the shadows always points to the heavenly fulfillment. The shadow event is also separate from the heavenly fulfillment — as different as the works of animal sin offering and our Lord Jesus’ actual removal of sin are from one another. When we see the shadow, we look forward to a great and wondrous fulfillment which will actually achieve what the shadow points to. The heavenly fulfillment completely takes away the former in order to establish the latter — the heavenly fulfillment does not retroactively fulfill the shadow.
Thus we are no longer under the earthly letter of the Law, but we have moved into the heavenly fulfillment of the Law — the Spirit of the Law. In the letter of the Law, priests performed literal sacrifices at a physical temple — whereas in the Spirit of the Law, Christians themselves are “living stones… being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices” (1 Peter 2:5). Paul said, “Do you not know that you are a temple of God?” (1 Corinthians 3:16). If Christians are the spiritual house, then they must likewise act according to the Spiritual fulfillment.
If they are the spiritual house — and the letter of the Law has been taken away in order to establish the Spirit of the Law — then the laws of the physical house no longer apply to them. The physical house was represented in the physical temple and the Old Covenant. Jeremiah said that the New Covenant is not like the Old Covenant (Jeremiah 31:32). Verily, the new covenant is Spiritual, eternal and perfect — whereas the Old Covenant was nullified “because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect)” (Hebrews 7:18-19).
In Colossians 2:8 Paul introduces the idea that the letter of the Law is merely the “elementary principles of the world, rather than in accordance with Christ.” And Paul continues in Colossians 2:20-23,
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of man? 23 These are matters which do have the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.
Some argue that Paul is not referring to the letter of the Law here, but rather that he is referring to the “traditions of men” outside of the Law. Yet if they are “traditions of men,” then there would have been no need to die with Christ in order to be released from them. Therefore, he must be referring to the letter of the Law itself.
Paul argues that these things are “of no value against fleshly indulgence” — after all, how could abstaining from certain foods bring about true righteousness? Likewise, how could the law of animal sin offering actually remove sin from our lives? Of course they cannot. The Lord says in Matthew 22:37-40,
37 … “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.”
If the whole Law and Prophets hang on those two laws, then each law must be explained in the context of loving our God or our neighbor. Simultaneously, the Lord said that “not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished!” (Matthew 5:18) Therefore, each law can indeed be explained as a heavenly fulfillment in such a way that one’s adherence to the spirit of that law results in true righteousness. To reiterate this point, Paul says in Colossians 2:16-17,
16 Therefore, no one is to act as your judge in regard to food and drink, or in respect to a festival or a new moon, or a Sabbath day— 17 things which are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance [or heavenly fulfillment] belongs to Christ.
The whole law — every letter and stroke — applies to our lives in a heavenly way — and is “a shadow of what is to come.” For example, Leviticus 11:7 says “the pig… is unclean to you.” Yet in the context of unclean foods, the Lord said that “whatever goes into the person from outside cannot defile him” (Mark 7:18). Exactly as Paul said, mere food can do nothing to defile one, make one unclean — or conversely, bring about true righteousness by abstinence.
Yet the Lord continues to say, “That which comes out of the person, that is what defiles the person.” (Mark 7:20) As Leviticus 11 stated, we are not to be unclean — yet the Lord taught the heavenly fulfillment of what it means to be clean and unclean — the condition of the heart and one’s motives. If it weren’t obvious enough, Mark wrote, “Thereby He declared all foods clean.” (Mark 7:19)
In removing the letter of the Law, the Lord taught and established the spirit of the Law. Thus “we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter” (Romans 7:6) — simultaneously no “letter or stroke” passed from the Law. We have also interpreted that law of uncleanness through the requirement of Matthew 22:37-40, because when our hearts are clean and pure, we naturally seek to love our neighbor as ourselves.
Part of having a clean heart means having clean thoughts. The Lord stated that even anger towards a brother constitutes murder (Matthew 5:22, 1 John 3:15) — and even lustful thoughts toward a woman constitutes adultery (Matthew 5:28). Paul goes as far as to say even outbursts of anger, jealousy and envy are grounds to be removed from the Kingdom of God (Galatians 5:20-21).
As another example, Hebrews 4:9-11 says,
9 Consequently, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. 10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. 11 Therefore let’s make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following the same example of disobedience.
Therefore, in order to apply the heavenly fulfillment of the Sabbath in our lives, we must perpetually strive to enter the eternal Sabbath rest of God. Paul says that some “value every day” (Romans 14:5) — as opposed to valuing merely one day of the week. Verily, if we seek to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul and strength (Deuteronomy 6:5), then we must value every day as if it were a Sabbath. Isaiah 58:13 says,
“If, because of the Sabbath, you restrain your foot from doing as you wish on My holy day, and call the Sabbath a pleasure, and the holy day of the Lord honorable, and honor it, desisting from your own ways, from seeking your own pleasure and speaking your own word
The Sabbath is not a day to seek our own pleasure — but a day to seek the will of God. As such, we should not judge one another about a specific day, so long as we each strive to enter the heavenly Sabbath — God’s rest.
As we already alluded to, marriage between men and women is also a shadow of the heavenly fulfillment — the wedding supper of the Lamb. This is why sexual immorality remains a grievous sin for any Christian as Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20,
12 All things are permitted for me, but not all things are of benefit. All things are permitted for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, however God will do away with both of them. But the body is not for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body. 14 Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are parts of Christ? Shall I then take away the parts of Christ and make them parts of a prostitute? Far from it! 16 Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “The two shall become one flesh.” 17 But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him. 18 Flee sexual immorality. Every other sin that a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you have been bought for a price: therefore glorify God in your body.
See how Paul connects everything we do — even our sin — with the heavenly fulfillment of the Law. We can see that despite no longer being under the letter of the Law, in many ways the spirit of the Law is far more strict. To this end, the Lord warned us, “unless your righteousness far surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:20)
Verily, Paul — a Pharisee — stated that he was blameless according to the letter of the Law — so none should consider it “easy” to exceed that righteousness. Neither does the Lord’s repeated condemnation of the Pharisees make it any easier. Before Paul was converted on the road to Damascus, he gave his life to his religion — and so did many Pharisees. Yet despite his “blamelessness” according to the letter of man-made religion — giving his whole life, Paul counted that righteousness as loss compared with Christ (Philippians 3:6-7).
Somehow our actions must exceed the actions of Paul and the Pharisees who kept the letter perfectly. How would this be possible except if there were a heavenly fulfillment — the spirit of the Law — attained only through faith?
Moving on to the subject of reward, the Hebrews author says that the New Covenant was even “enacted on better promises.” (Hebrews 8:6) Further on he says the Law “has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the form of those things itself” (Hebrews 10:1). Then even the promises of the Law have changed to the heavenly fulfillment, which is “the promise of the eternal inheritance.” (Hebrews 9:15)
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13:13,
12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I also have been fully known. 13 But now faith, hope, and love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
Paul compares our current existence with looking into a dim mirror — much the same as the Hebrews author comparing our existence now with a shadow. He tells us that in spite of knowing only in part now — seeing only dimness and shadows — that we will fully know in the next life. Yet he gives us an absolutely critical insight into the next life — “faith, hope and love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.”
In other words, despite seeing only dimly now, these qualities — faith, hope and love — which we even have in this life will persist into the next. Put another way, these qualities are the only things in this life which are not shadows — the next life will not give us any extra insight into them. That is exactly why the spirit of the Law hangs on love — and why everything must be seen through the lens of love — first to our God, then to our brethren.
Furthermore, that is why “without faith it is impossible to please” God (Hebrews 11:6) — and why the righteousness according to faith is so highly esteemed by God. Faith is another quality we will take into the next life. Faith is also not a shadow.
By love and faith we live this life according to the spirit of the Law — which persists forever. Paul says to Timothy, “the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from a sincere faith.” (1 Timothy 1:5) In doing so, we put off our flesh and “become partakers of the divine nature.” (2 Peter 1:4) We put on the new self, becoming conformed to the image of the Creator (Colossians 2:10). There is an aspect of our eternal nature and incorruptible bodies which we are able to grow into in this life already.
It is only possible for us to do so by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit — because the Law is spiritual. This is why we “were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of the promise, who is a first installment of our inheritance.” (Ephesians 1:13-14) That divine nature granted to us by the Holy Spirit — love and faith — is the first installment of our eternal inheritance. Any who lay claim to an eternal inheritance must have received the first installment in this life already. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5:4-5,
4 For indeed, we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life. 5 Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave us the Spirit as a pledge.
Paul explicitly tells us that the Spirit is the pledge of our eternal existence. If we do not have the Spirit, we have no pledge. If we have no pledge, we have no guarantee of the eternal inheritance — regardless of our Israelite flesh (Philippians 3:3-8).
If we are building ourselves into a spiritual house (1 Corinthians 3:16, Ephesians 2:21-22, 1 Peter 2:5) — and are in the spiritual house, then we must open our eyes to the spiritual house. How else could we know how to treat our fellow cohabitants — the house itself? If we have died to our flesh in Christ, then we are alive in the Spirit in His spiritual house — and we should start to act as such.
At some point our fleshly bodies will be given up for new bodies, but we have already been given the pledge — and arguably the best and most vital part of our inheritance already — the Holy Spirit. We have been given the eyes with which to see far beyond this fleshly world — and we have been given eyes with which to see far beyond even angel’s eyes. If any creature — whether flesh or angel — is not a vessel of the Holy Spirit, it is utterly blind.
For us to understand the spirit of the Law, we must close our fleshly eyes and open on the eyes we have in the Spirit. We must gaze out into eternity with our new family in our new house, knowing we will inherit spiritual bodies. That is the Spirit of the Law — beginning our eternal destiny, despite not having yet received our eternal bodies.
In summary of Romans 7:6, Paul tells us that our death with Christ Jesus took us out from the “oldness of the letter” — the “elementary principles of the world” — and brought us into a heavenly fulfillment of the law — the “newness of the Spirit.” If we are to build ourselves into the eternal Spiritual temple, we must exhibit eternal Spiritual qualities.
In Part 2, we will continue in Paul’s discourse and show how this applies in our lives.
Carolus
September 11, 2021 at 4:38 am
birnie, your comments are obtuse and inscrutable. Sorry, I cannot follow what you are trying to say or understand your logic.
Love is kind love is gentle… patients is the key Calorus. Neither understand I you. Are we Christian or hypocrites. The former. Please.
Edward I asks me
September 9, 2021 at 5:56 am
birnie, do you believe that race mixing is a sin? or do you believe that the law against it was done away with with the rest of the Law? or do you even believe that there ever was a law against race mixing?
Edward thanks:
I have to ask this question? Is there one word in the entire bible used as race. Not one.
The word we seek is goy or in Greek ethnos – ethnicity
ethnos is culture, national family, language, borders and land ect.
Never race this was a word first used I think in the 18 hundreds.
Now ancient Israelite’s were not to marry the virgin daughters of other nations lest they turn you to worshipping their gods. They had rules of segregation through food ect to set them apart from other nations ethnicities who worshipped idols.
So no. Thank you.
Gal 3:24-25: The author says the “law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ…but after faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster.”
The passage states the purpose of the law and its duration.
The Law is gone because Christ is come; if the law is still in force, Christ died in vain. Galatians 2:21.
Those who strive to be justified by law. are fallen from grace. Gal 5:4
Gal 3:10-11 Those under law are under a curse
Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law.
Gal 3:10 Cursed is the man who does not do ALL THINGS written in the law. Do you circumcise 8 day old babies? No! Then you are not following the law to do all things written. Its always been a whole package not a buffet.
If the Law was eternal why was it changed? If
May we all pray for union in this matter. I pray for humility and truth to guide my way. Peace.
Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
The Law nor all things written in the Law were eternal.
Yet you continue to say not one yod will pass from the law and that it is forever and eternal. How did you loose the commandment of Levitical priesthood. Clearly Matthew 5:1… is not eternal as your own doctrine shows yods were removed from the Law.
I pray for unity and truth for all to become of the same mind. Peace.
birnie, you quoted Galatians 3:10, “Those under law are under a curse”
Don’t you see the contradiction to your position right in that verse?
How can anyone be under the law after the death of Christ, according to you, yet this verse of Paul’s is telling us that there are still those under the law, and they are cursed.
Either way, the full translation should be “Those under the works of the law”. Why did you leave that out? We know why, because you don’t see any difference between the law and works of the law. And that justifies your position. You’ve chosen a translation that suits your agenda. Self-serving, no?
To “repent” simply means to admit that you are a guilty sinner, which is the purpose of the Law according to Romans 3:19. The Law shows us our sinfulness and need for the Savior (Galatians 3:25-26). God’s plan is beautiful. The Old Testament Law shows us our need. Satan has caused MUCH confusion (deliberately so) in this critical doctrinal area, and for obvious reasons; that is, to lead people down a wrong path of self-righteousness to Hell and damnation.
Hebrews 6:1, “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God.”
Were these Hebrews returning to a Law based salvation. Was that the dead works of the Law. Only Christ manifest in the flesh accomplished the Law. I am not under Law for man and only men it is a curse of death.
Great question.
Sorry, birnie, you didn’t answer my question, but instead just repeated yourself. You are the one who is confused. I don’t think you understand your own confusion about this issue and your inability to even acknowledge that Paul is explaining a paradox. Do you acknowledge that Paul is trying to explain this paradox or do you just ignore it and pretend there is no paradox?
Tad thanks, I chose not to complete the verse as I wanted to highlight that one fact. I think that translation was a KJV so why is it I chose a translation that suits my agenda. If my agenda is truth then it biblical. Negating the falsities lets progress.
Paul said the glory of the Old covenant was fading away. Calling it a ministry of death.
At that time Israelites still had a temple, worship and sacrifices as well as a priesthood. After AD 70 the age of that dispensation was ended.
Galatians 3:5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? 6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[c]
7 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”[d] 9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
I thank God the Spirit received and the miraculous proves were not on the basis of the Law not works of the Law.
The Spirit of Christ is a Free Gift = grace.
11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”[f] 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”[g] 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”[h]
Tell me Tad as I answer you with respect. How is the Law not based upon faith? Its there in the verse 12. Are you saying the Law is based upon faith?
birnie, you obviously didn’t read the article, or if you did, you didn’t understand it. You are stuck in a judeo-Christian mental rut. You don’t understand Paul’s paradox, as Peter predicted many wouldn’t, and there really isn’t anything left to say on this issue.
Birnie obviously didn’t read (or understand?) the article. If he did, he would notice some of the commonalities in what it says and what he believes (oh irony of ironies).
He doesn’t seem to understand the arguments one may argue with him either. Reading his own arguments is like reading hieroglyphics. One may try to lead him through questioning to make sense of his views, but he either rails at it or ignores it.
In this way, one is only “allowed” to understand what he chooses to present… So he never makes himself vulnerable enough for criticism. I’ve seen this same tactic elsewhere recently.
But onward he goes, restating his views over and over and over and over… As if oblivious to his own ignorance of the article and even the conversation at hand. It’s quite perplexing really.
http://www.herealittletherealittle.net/index.cfm?page_name=Grace-Law
Thanks Tad.
I now understand your potion clearly. I do however respectfully still not agree. MATTHEW 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the Law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (NKJV)
Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments is least in the kingdom of heaven. See circumcision must be taught as it is one of the Laws. I however see that I have been release from bondage and the Law. As Christ fulfilled the law and it is now redundant. The New Testament is the Law of the Spirit.
birnie, you obviously have no idea about the difference between the rituals of the Law and the Law itself, and the Spirit of the Law. You are comparing apples to oranges and conflating the two. This conversation is pointless.
Hardly. The spirit of the Law is the Holy Spirit. Did any man save Christ succeed in living according to that Spirit. It is a free gift. The Law was bondage from which I am set free. Walk by the Spirit is to follow the teachings of the NT and the commandments of Christ. It says the Law. Ho on earth do you divide the Law into parts when the Law says you will not add nor subtract. Its a package deal. Fleshly Israel prove its reveals sin as they could not live up to its requirements. This is how God chose to reveal sin. The Law is indivisible. You lot say the Law must stay intact till heaven and earth pass. You also state that no yod nor tittle can pass. Well how on earth did that happen? A new covenant means yods were changed and new Alpha and Omegas were added. Amazing how we are trapped in this circular argument. Not like the one given to Moses. So Those yods were replaced. To accept this means a whole lot of this sites articles must be re thought. If the Law was written on Stones why the need for a Law written on our hearts. Not like the one given to Moses.
birnie, this is just more word salad, nonsensical….”The spirit of the Law is the Holy Spirit.” I have a serious question for you: if this is what you truly believe, what are you doing as a regular reader and commenter here? The writing here completely contradicts what you seem to believe not just about his issue but so many others.
Tad thank you. I am here because we all have a Jewish problem. My people are dying from lack of knowledge. “For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of Elohim (God), and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ“ (2 Cor.10:3-6, NIV).
I am a truth teller and seeker. Always ready to learn. All truths must be tested and cleaved onto. Did you think there was a special membership on this site. I thought you were fighting for the cause of truth. If I am wrong please share and I will consider the matter with a biblical standard and common sense.
As it is I see much wrong and seek to clarify my position to test that I am correct. You say the sites writing completely contradicts my beliefs. Not entirely! see we all believe in Christ. I seek unity on one revealed truth of scripture. Surely you can agreed to that proposition.
Matt 5:19 says: 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven;
Do you circumcise? That is One of the least of these commandments. If not one yod can pass from the Law until heaven and earth pass away how is it circumcision (one of the least commandments) passed from the Law.. Clearly it was in its fulfilment. You can solve all your problems by correctly interpreting Matthew 5:17_19. Instead you reject the proposal being made by the apostles and demand the Law was forever even when it says you are released from the Law. The Law makes no thing perfect. Why do you hate the truth in this matter? I have asked that one just one of you reveal the truth of matt 5. Sadly the answer is deafening.
You do not have an Old covenant without the Law. You may not remove from the Law. So why do you not circumcise? Its really simple. The Law says you may not add not remove from the Law. Yet that is what you do when you pick and choose.
Thank You Tad.
birnie, you clearly don’t understand the paradox — and it is a paradox — of the Law being “done away with” and the Law being eternal. That’s what Romans explains, and very few Christians understand this paradox, so you are not alone. Hopefully, you will read Part 2 of the series, and it will help you through the paradox and help you let go of your bias. It isn’t as simple as reducing to an either/or situation.
Calorus. How did you get a change in the Law if yod and tittles did not pass from the Law? Another version says:
not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
How do you propose a change in the Law if this has not happened as this article proposes? Its really quite simple. If the Law changed then the yods and tittles are not the same. Yet the proposal is that not one yod or tittle has dissapeared from the Law. Clearly they have. You all know they have. So please lets be honest about not using Matthew 5:1-18 in an obviously disingenuous hermanetic.
CFT wrote:
“If it weren’t obvious enough, Mark wrote, “Thereby He declared all foods clean.”
That line “Thereby He declared all foods clean” is spurious and found only in newer translations, like the NIV.
Furthermore, it doesn’t fit into the context of Christ’s message in Mark 7.
His disciples initially thought Christ meant food when they ask him:
“Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?”
To which Christ responds with the next 3 verses, saying:
“And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.”
Christ is not talking about food, but things within a man that tempt man to sin, i.e. evil thoughts, murders, adulteries etc. All things listed clearly in verses 22 and 23.
When such things come out from a man he is defiled. When a man sins he becomes unclean.
I hope you guys take this to heart.
Christ can only really be talking about purifying the meat no matter how it’s translated, because the Greek word is Strong’s G2511. Unless this was a teaching on meat becoming clean (including a clean heart), using that word wouldn’t make much sense.
So the liberties some translations have taken are justified in this case.
Clear,
Strong’s G2511 is ‘katharizo’ and means “to cleanse (literally or figuratively), purge, purify.”
It is used, for example, in Acts 11 to refer to those gentiles God had made clean.
It can mean to be made clean of sin as well as from leprosy or other maladies.
Further, the words of Christ in Mark 7 are enough to prove my case. He literally tells us what he is talking about in verses 22 and 23, as I showed above, and it has nothing to do with making unlcean food clean.
Here are just a few scriptural witnesses of G2511 referring to cleansing of the spirit from sin:
Acts 15:9
“And put no difference between us and them, purifying (G2511) their hearts by faith.”
2 Cor 7:1
“Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse (G2511) ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”
Hebrews 9:14
“How much more shall G2511 ➔ the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge (G2511) your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”
1 John 1:7
“But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth (G2511) us from all sin.”
Clear,
Also, G2511 is used at Mark 18, which is a verse posed as a question from the disciples, which Christ refutes.
So the purging of unclean meats at Mark 18 is merely what the disciples though Christ might have meant.
As I showed above, Christ answers them with what He did mean, and it had nothing to do with unclean meats.
It should also be clear that Mark 7 begins with the pharisees and scribes admonishing Christ for not upholding the tradition of the elders, in terms of washing hands and pots before eating.
Also I redact what I said above about Christ refuting His disciples for what they asked him at verse 18. He didn’t refute them, though He didn’t say that unclean food like swine, crow or monkey brains, had been made clean either.
There is a world of difference between saying that sin coming from a man defiles him more than what goes into him, and saying “therefore all meats are clean.”
We cannot imagine that he meant that scavenger meat no longer would make one sick. We know that not until recently in the 20th century did government regulations make swine meat less polluted for our consumption.
Swine meat itself cannot defile a man’s spirit, sure, but that does not mean it is clean food.
We are in a time when it is almost impossible to have a perfectly clean diet due to pesticides and GMO’s. Many of us are poor and will eat a bag of lays potato chips etc when its all we have.
But context is everything.
For myself, Knowing what pigs are – like crows or hyenas – I will not eat them.
I think it is obvious that mammals that chew the cud and have divided hooves were created to be clean meat. Grass feeding mammals that digest their food in a particular way.
I am getting many questions. Too many to address. Many are loaded with a unnecessary, twists. So in the spirit of Jesus first answer mine.
A testament is a legal document stating the wishes of a deceased person in the choosing of beneficiaries as well as proportions of inheritance and divisions of the estate. Now educated people all know it is the Last will that is enforced upon death of the testator. A court is appointed to asses the appropriate and last will. never part of two testaments. One and only one. Now, the terms of this will are to be carried out accordance with the diseased persons wishes.
No reference to the previous will in full nor in part is enforceable. If this is the case with Christianity and the final testament is the New Testament and not the Law. Why do you return to the old to make your claim of inheritance? Why do you refer to the old testament which a non enforceable legal document.
If the New testament is the enforceable document why do you keep referring to the old testament? God does not offer life upon the old unenforced testament but upon the new.
Knowing this, all testaments may contain terms of beneficiaries inheriting. IE My first son will inherit only when he graduates with a degree in engineering. So too the NT has terms and conditions of eternal life. The terms are in the testament that is active and enforced by courts and administrated by the testator. What is your sin?. The only sin there is no pardon for is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Rejecting the spiritual covenant of God excludes you from the free gift of salvation. Your inheritance is the spirit that is the gift of the Spirit and life. Galatians says I am not under the guardian nor the Law. If I were under obligation to the Law I would kill the one practising bestiality. After all you cannot take part of the Law its an all or nothing package and the punishment is also enforceable. When last did any of you kill the homosexual. So, neither you nor I practice that Law. It is clear death was demanded of wilful sin. So please do not tell me I am under the law of sin as you do not even administer that Law. Deut 4:2 You may not add or subtract from that Law. You cannot make it part ceremonial and part ritual. You must practice every last commandment. Always on this site you quote not one yod or tittle will pass from the law.. And that is exactly what you do when you pick and choose from the wrong testament and thrust it in an illegal way into the New testament era. I did not receive the Spirit by obedience to the Law. You all, seem to be proposing that I maintain the Spirit by obedience to a Law no man could keep. All fall short of the glory of God. Short of His Spirit and His righteous Son.
Oh dear Birnie, only narcissists use Jesus’ name in vain to get others to do what they want.
So thanks, but no thanks Birnie, you can answer my questions. I have no interest in answering yours.
Though I suspect one as learned as yourself could make short work of my questions, no?
Narcissist! you see everyone this is why Law must be dissolved. Ye who are without sin, cast the first stone. You are not a narcissist to me. Jesus demanded a sinless judge and Judgement. He was it. Neither do I judge you. Go oh adulteress and sin no more. My Lord calls me a son of God most high and you hate me. Why? Because you want a Law that niether you nor I can keep. Viva Liberty. Love is the fulfilment of the Law. Show me you lawfulness by your deeds. I will show you mine by Christ.
Hi Birnie, you used Jesus’ name in vain to try and get me to do what you want. Like saying, “In the spirit of Jesus, spread yourself at my feet and bend to my will, because Jesus would want you to.” It’s quite sick and twisted honestly.
You say you’ll show yourself by Christ, but you’ve already done the exact opposite. It’s the typical narcissist reaction to get offended at being “judged” and turn it into something personal. Like saying, “How dare you point out my emotional manipulations!”
Now instead of showing the other cheek and proving your goodness in word and deed, you again do the exact opposite. Twice now you’ve used Christ’s name in vain, and you’ve done so to try and get me to feel bad about pointing out your manipulation. You’ve attempted the same manipulation to get yourself out of the original manipulation you did. Amazing.
Will you triple down in your tactics, I wonder..?
No never grass, I d not want you to do what i want! heaven forbid. You are free to choose. All I want is truth?!@. Do not show other cheek show resistance. Abraham was made righteous with out the law.For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” (Gal. 3:10). ALL THINGS. Well what the hell is wrong with this hermetical hypothesis. All things makes one under a curse. Do you feel me, now.
Your argument is moot, birnie. Term “Old Testament” is not Scriptural, nor is the “New Testament”. Those are extra-biblical descriptors that have no authority whatsoever. Therefore, your argument has no foundation whatsoever. Not a very effective way to avoid answering direct questions that you continually avoid and cannot answer.
A covenant is an agreement between two parties. The emphasis in on the words “agreement” and “parties.” However, a diatheke is a testament or will. As in English, it is a unilateral—a one-sided—declaration of the disposition of property that a person makes in anticipation of his death. Heb 9:16 16 In the case of a will, it is necessary to establish the death of the one who made it, 17because a will does not take effect until the one who made it has died; it cannot be executed while he is still alive.…
Clearly most bibles translate that will/or testament. Me thinks thou doest protest too much.
Your staff is obviously knowledgable and are good writers, but you need to learn how to write more concisely. Summarize before I need another meal to get through it all. I hardly ever read your articles because they are just too long.
Jane, many important subjects in the Bible cannot be reduced down to executive summaries that you can read along with the morning headlines. These subjects are serious and weighty matters that many others have written entire books on. We suggest that you read them a little at a time and then come back to them if you cannot tackle them all at one sitting.
Yes, we understand that in this world of the internet, everyone’s attention spans have been so shortened that paragraphs now are now often no longer than one sentence long, but we need to fight against that — God’s word cannot be summed up and explained in sound bites.
Being a truly dedicated Christian requires patience, commitment, and perseverance. He gave His life for us, but in return, do we not have an hour or so every couple weeks to dedicate to understanding His word? The effort it takes to read these essays is only a fraction of the effort it takes to write them — and we hope our essays encourage a deeper commitment to Christ for all of our loyal — and casual readers.
Uh oh…..comment here says that God uses the jews to transform the behavior of Christians.
Christ called the jews the “Synagogue of Satan” and of course HE was right.
So….if you claim that God uses the jews to do His work for Him…..you are basically committing the unpardonable sin……
Consider the words used by Jesus. The Bible elsewhere speaks of “resisting the Spirit” (Acts 7:51) and of “quenching the Spirit” (1 Thess. 5:19), but this is not what Jesus said about this unpardonable sin. He was very specific about its nature when He said the sin was blaspheming the Spirit. He then defined the word blaspheming of the Spirit as “to speak against the Spirit” (Matt. 12:31-32). His words show that the unpardonable sin was to speak against the Spirit. This is precisely what the Jews had done. Jesus had cast out the demon by the Spirit of God (12:28), and they spoke against the Spirit by calling Him the Spirit of Beelzebub (12:24).
Jesus warned against the sin of ascribing the power of The Holy Spirit to Satan.
This is what you are doing if you claim that God uses the jews (The Synagogue of Satan) to effect the behavior of Christians.
God isn’t using the jews to influence our behavior……Satan is using the jews to influence our behavior and wreck our nations.
Bernard, you are very confused. Today’s “Jews” are not the Jews of the Bible. That is so basic of a concept that you should know better by now.
Do you believe that Satan can act against the will of God? Is Satan as powerful as God or more powerful that he can do something that God doesn’t want him to do? If so, that is a god that failed.
https://christiansfortruth.com/who-are-jews/
https://christiansfortruth.com/jews-have-meltdown-when-navy-chaplain-quotes-bible-that-the-men-of-israel-crucified-christ-and-need-to-repent/
Hey Bernard, have you not read Isaiah 9:11-14? God does use other people’s as a rod of chastisement against His children, Israel!
11The LORD has raised up the foes of Rezin against him and joined his enemies together. 12Aramc from the east and Philistia from the west have devoured Israel with open mouths. Despite all this, His anger is not turned away; His hand is still upraised. 13But the people did not return to Him who struck them; they did not seek the LORD of Hosts. 14 So the LORD will cut off Israel’s head and tail, both palm branch and reed in a single day.
What say ye?
Bernard, you’ve contorted the Scripture to try and lay guilt of unpardonable sin at the feet of another. How very satanic of you…
Let’s go through the original case:
* Christ performed supernatural miracles.
* Christ claimed it was the Holy Spirit.
* Therefore, Christ proved His claim by doing something they couldn’t.
* The Pharisees were forced to acknowledge something supernatural was afoot.
* The Pharisees had no grounds to refute Christ’s claim according to the Law in light of Him showing them a sign/wonder (Deuteronomy 13:1-5, Isaiah 8:20)
* Despite having irrefutable proof that it was supernatural, and not being able to refute it according to the Law, they willingly chose to call the Holy Spirit “Beelzebul”, an Ekronite false god… In accordance with Deuteronomy 13:1-5.
You’ve horribly misapplied the unpardonable sin case. Also you seem rather ignorant of the myriad Scriptures showing that God uses evil to chastise His own people. If you can’t even acknowledge those Scriptures, then your problem is far worse then mere ignorance…
Actually, the reasons for the fall of Christendom have little to do with “sin,” and I would argue that it’s just the opposite, that it’s Christian tolerance and patience and decency that the jews have used against our people.
That and the sad fact that someone with a Christian value system can’t even begin to fathom the thought processes of an organized group that is intent on subversion and destruction.
It’s our trusting, gullible, (perhaps stupid) nature that has unwittingly enabled the curse and grief of jewish supremacy to destroy our once proud and productive Christian cultures.
“it’s Christian tolerance and patience and decency that the jews have used against our people.”
You don’t seem to understand the full scope of our sin. Tolerance of sin is a sin itself. Christians that tolerate lawless Jews are guilty of that lawlessness. James 2:9, “But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.”
Why do you insist on portraying Christians as “decent” when we have tolerated evil in our midst? Why do you give a free pass to the Judas Goats among us, our own people who have sold us out to the Jews? Why do you refuse to accept responsibility for your own sorry state? We have the Jews we deserve, they thrive on our sins, which out which they could find no purchase. Why do you insist on giving Jews so much power and at the same time insist on your own innocence?
God tells us that he uses the Jews as a rod of chastisement to punish us for our lawlessness, but you refuse to see that. He promises to heal us, not when we finally kick the Jews out of our society, but rather when we turn away from sin and back to Him, only then will He remove that rod of chastisement:
“All thy lovers have forgotten thee; they seek thee not; for I have wounded thee with the wound of an enemy, with the chastisement of a cruel one, for the multitude of thine iniquity; because thy sins were increased.” Jeremiah 30:14
“And My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” 2 Chronicles 7:14
It is almost universally accepted that “The Traditions of men” refers to the oral Talmud.
The New Covenant is a brand new thing, a total break from judaism.
Trying to push the law is what I would consider a form of judaizing.
As much as I love Ann Coulter, she once made the stupid comment that jews are saved by observing the law and they don’t have to accept Christ. She is completely WRONG about this.
I do not believe that the reason for the downfall of Christendom is a rejection of The Law. It has nothing to do with that. The destruction of the west is due to organized jewry and their myriad efforts to wreck everything…..massive third world immigration/white genocide, abortion, porn, civil rights (no rights for whites) gay marriage, opiate and alcohol abuse, the destruction of the family and sexual mores, the persecution of Christians, etc.etc.etc.
I will grant you that there might be Christians who believe they can do whatever they want and be forgiven no matter what…..and I still wonder if salvation can be lost…….
Steve, three queries for your comment:
1. Do you understand that the essay takes an anti-judaizing stance? Do you understand the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law?
2. Why is abortion, porn and homosexuality wrong? By what standard of measure do we know they are wrong?
3. Do you understand that modern Jews are not the Israelites of the Bible?
Steve Saler wrote, “It is almost universally accepted that “The Traditions of men” refers to the oral Talmud.”
Really? Let’s take a look at what is considered mainstream Bible commentary, and see if any of them directly connect “tradition of men” to the Talmud:
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/colossians/2-8.htm
The answer is a resounding “No”. No mention of the Talmud, oral or otherwise. So your interpretation isn’t even close to being “universal” at all. A “tradition of men” would be any anti- and extra-bliblical esoterica, including gnosticism. The term encompasses much more than just the Talmud, and talmudism was hardly the only “oral” traditions at that time.
And you have your terms confused. The faith of the Old Testament is NOT Judaism. Judaism, as a “religion”, did not even exist at the time of Christ, but came together much later as a reaction against Christianity. That’s why rabbis will admit that Judaism is partly based on Phariseeism and its rejection of Christ and stubborn adherence to the Law without faith. In the Temple, at the time of Christ, they were not teaching the Talmud. Paul, a former Pharisee, never mentions the Talmud as part of what he adhered to prior to his conversion, despite people falsely accusing him of being a “judaizer.”
By saying that the downfall of Christendom has “nothing to do with the rejection of the Law,” you are basically saying that our fall has nothing to do with Christians sinning, and without Christian sinning, the Jews could not possibly succeed. You seem to be suggesting that Jews can destroy our nations without Christians committing sin. If we, as Christians, continue to blame Jews for our own sin, we are doomed. They are the seducers, the serpents, and we are the sinners.
To answer your question, “Can salvation be lost?”, you need to read:
https://christiansfortruth.com/will-all-israel-be-saved-or-just-a-remnant/
Organized jewry subverted the church with the Scofield Bible. Steven Anderson has covered this in detail. So, the idea that the fall of the west is due to “Christians sinning” is a rather stupid argument that probably came from the Sanhedrin itself. This is the worst kind of blame the victim nonsense and I reject it totally.
In addition, I also reject the idea that the “pathological altruism” of whites is the cause of the destruction of Christendom for the same reason…..it blames the victim and lets the small hats off the hook.
I’m not claiming that Christian sin isn’t a problem; I’m saying that most (if not all) of the temptations/sin generally leads back to the NOSE and their shenanigans.
And regarding the constant arguments about who and what the jews “really are,” the debates about what label to give them, the Khazer Theory, etc., in the end, no matter what label you affix, their subversive behavior seems to be a constant throughout recorded history.
If you are going to insist that we should not blame the jews for their obvious nation wrecking behavior, then yes we are surely doomed.
Paul, you’re clearly not open to learning. Neither are you even willing to discuss the facts of the matter, except to regurgitate your own views in the most self-righteous, self-gratifying and unpersuasive manner.
So what are you doing here? Just getting your dopamine hit? Quick shot from some or other article to burn your blood with anger at the Jews?
If you can’t even consider the facts, or the Bible, or any argument which contradicts your views, you’re lost and blind inside a psychological prison of your own making.
Luke 16:16The 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. 17But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for a single stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.…
Note proclaimed? By who the prophets and inspired Son of God. Still always the Judiazers proclaim the Law. Why because they fear the power of the Jews! The Law is that which leads you to Christ? Gal 3:24 The Israelite’s turned good into evil. Now sadly the faithless want us to return. The length of any argument is proportional to its hollowness. 24So the law became our guardian to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.… I am not under the Law Gaurdian its just that simple
Tell me Birnie, if someone were to murder their brother, do you think that would be sin?
Murder—Revelation 21:8; Mark 7:21; 5:21; 10: 19; 19:18; Luke 18:20; Romans 1:29; 1 Peter 3:15; 4:15; Matthew 15:19
Why are you in doubt?
Hi Birnie, well answered. I’d love to see your exposition on Mark 10:19 and Luke 18:20. What are the speakers quoting in those verses? What commandments?
Yes, birnie, in Mark 10:19 and Luke 18:20 Jesus Christ quotes the Law. Why would He do that if He did away with the Law?
“Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.”
Thanks.
Mark 10:19
New International Version
19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’[a]”
All of these commandments were written on the tablets of stone. The first revelation of the old covenant as it was being revealed to Moses over a period of time.
2 Corinth 3:6 And He has qualified us as ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7Fading glory of Mosaic ministry.
11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
v 3 written not with ink or engraved on stone.
Ministry of death fades and ministry of Spirit remains.
If it is not engrave on stones why are you under a the Old Law. Are you a Hebrew Israelite or of the other nations? The Law was for fleshly Israel. Even the Sabbath day was removed. It was only a pointer to a better ministry.
Therefore sin is not on the basis of the old testament Law. We were not under that Law.
If the Law was eternal from the beginning of the world and surpasses the Nt testament era: ask yourself if Adam sinned because he had no Law of engraved Tablets.gaurdian
Murder- who would he murder as he was alone.
Adultery- No, not there he was alone.
Obedience to Parents- he was alone and God was his creator.
The Law was only introduced by Moses it had not application on the descendants of Moses. They lived under different circumstances. Rom 5:13 No Law? Then no accounting or reckoning. I have been set free from the self righteous practice and idea of the Law. Galatians says I am no longer under the guardian and not under The law. All providing I am an flesh and blood Israelite. The sin is a rejection of Christ and His mercy.
Indeed, “sin is the rejection of Christ and His mercy.” I don’t want to reject His mercy, so I don’t want to sin! But Birnie, how do I know what sin is in the first place?
Birnie, if there was no Law before the “stone tablets” of Moses, then on what basis did God punish the world and flood it for His judgment that it was “corrupt”? (Genesis 6:9). Why punish people who don’t know good from evil?
And if there was no Law in the Garden of Eden, what is the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? On what basis did God cast out Adam and Eve from the Garden, except for disobeying God’s commands?
birnie, please explain what you mean here, “Still always the Judiazers proclaim the Law. Why because they fear the power of the Jews!” I cannot understand this for the life of me…..
Tad, thanks for the question. Do your own research on the catalogues of sin in the New testament. Many Old constitution Laws were repeated and introduced unto the New covenant. Ask yourself before the US constitution was murder not outlawed. Yes! Well so too in the New Testament which did away with the Law as a means of relationship with God. Murder was again re instituted and defined as a sin of the NT. The Law is gone you were never under it nor can you be as you are not a fill blood son of Abraham.
https://truediscipleship.com/official-list-sins-new-testament/
When Paul says I would not have know what sin was except by the Law he is speaking to Jews to convert them from the old dispensational directives and covenant. He is not addressing gentiles. They were not under the Law.
Ephesian 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
He abolished the Law of commandments. Not the upholding of Law for gentiles.
Anyone who returns to Law is a Judiazer and will fall short. Hebrews 6:6 to crucify Christ again is to return to the vomit of the OT.
That’s interesting Birnie. I have two questions for you:
1. Do you think beastiality is a sin? What about a man raping a virgin?
2. You call the OT vomit. How do you reconcile that with 1 Timothy 1:8-9 and 2 Timothy 3:16?
Would appreciate your answers Birnie, thanks!
Grass I refer you to the list of sins in the NT. as referred to in the above post. See for yourself.
https://truediscipleship.com/official-list-sins-new-testament/
1O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? 3Are you so foolish? After starting in the Spirit, are you now finishing in the flesh?…
The Spirit is not received by works of Law. Those who worship God worship in spirit and in truth. I began with the Spirit not the Law of works and self righteousness based upon the old dispensation. Paul in Galatians is making the exact opposite as is being proposed.
Paul instructs men to marry so yes sex with a virgin is clearly not part of the Law of the spirit and love. So sex outside marriage will also include beasts. After all you cannot marry a beast either under Roman Law or the OT Law. Christian Lord the Christ and all that he commanded us. See Great commission. Christian ethics is common sense. Romans argues: do not the gentiles by nature do the things of the Law. Yet without a Law. The OT Law says you must redeem your brothers wife and lay with her so she can have an inheritance. I follow the NT and its list of sins guided by common sense and s respect for God, neighbour and self. Though it is not a complete list of every type of sin it does rely upon governance of the elders.
Birnie, I have some follow up questions on your answer to my first question:
1. What constitutes “marriage”? The NT never says that civil unions or marriage ceremonies constitute marriage itself, so how have you decided what marriage actually is? How does a man marry a woman in the eyes of God?
2. Why did you refer to the “OT Law” when talking about marriage with beasts? I thought the OT was vomit and you could get everything from the NT?
3. Are you saying that because someone can never marry a beast, that beastiality is always “extra-marital sex”?
4. You referred to Romans 2:12-15 where the nations do the things according to the law and are justified according to the law. But you said “He abolished the Law of commandments. Not the upholding of Law for gentiles. Anyone who returns to Law is a Judiazer and will fall short.” I’m not sure how to reconcile what you’re saying with your own words Birnie. Could you please help me out here?
5. You said that “Christian ethics is common sense”. Do you mean the common sense of the churches who allow homosexuals in their congregation? Whose common sense do you think determines Christian ethics?
Secondly, I’m afraid you didn’t answer my second question at all. I’d appreciate a direct answer, if you will: “You call the OT vomit. How do you reconcile that with 1 Timothy 1:8-9 and 2 Timothy 3:16?”
Thirdly, did you read and understand the above article Birnie?
Looking forward to your specific answers on each point, Birnie! Hoping you don’t ignore them.
birnie, it’s quite clear to me that you do not understand the difference between the law and the spirit of the law. How do the disciples know that all those sins mentioned in the NT are sins? Because of the law. Do you think they just made them up? Paul makes that point very clear — without the Law, we would not know what sin is.
http://www.herealittletherealittle.net/index.cfm?page_name=Grace-Law
birnie, do you believe that race mixing is a sin? or do you believe that the law against it was done away with with the rest of the Law? or do you even believe that there ever was a law against race mixing?
birnie, do you think that Paul was a “judaizer”?
No Paul was a legalist then he had his Damascus road experience. He of all the apostles did us a favour of pointing out that a return to Law is to fall from grace (free gift). Atonement is completed in Christ. Paul called them dogs who came in and spied out our liberties. From what were you liberated the Law. The accuser has no more accusations as the Law was faded away. The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. (1 Corinthians 15:56). Fullfiled and remove the Law and Satan has no power over you. The New has come. New wine in New skins. Its not what is written on stones but on the heart. Not written on stones. Make a note.
Grass quotes 1 Timothy 1:8-9 and it says: law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient… Are you disobedient and lawless?. Is that why you say not one yod or tittle passed from the law. Yet you remove so many try make this theory work- if that is possible!. The last will is the will that is enforced by the court of heaven. That is why the old will was removed. Its a legal argument that seems to elude the most of us. The question is why? If the New covenant is the Testament. Then Jeremiah was correct in Jermiah 31:31-32. The New will not be like the one he made with their forefathers when He took then by the hand and led them out of Egypt. That covenant has gone. Did God take your ancestors by the hand out of Egypt? No. So its a covenant of circumcision to enter there in. There is a difference between the requirement of the Law and obedience to the Law. Righteousness is the requirement. I received it from God by imputation through the achievemenst and sacrificial atonement of Christ. Never on works. If we follow a small portion of the Law then yods tittles are removed and we have added and subtracted from the Law. Stricktly not legal under the old covenant.
Fornication and pornea. A study a Grass: will satisfy all your confusion surrounding sexual impropriety. Yes a man is married upon a betrothal, marriage certificate and consummation in the OT. 2 Timothy 3:16 says scripture is useful for teaching in all righteousness. So go build an ark!. You see its time has come and it is not for us to dig up the previous age or dispensation and build arks. Clearly God will never destroy the world by a flood again. Because He said so. Gal 2:18 18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
Notice Paul destroyed or tore down the law and old covenant. Its Peter who was trying to segregate himself from gentiles based upon that wall of hostility. The Law makes people hostile and enmity results. We must desist from rebuilding the Law as a means of self justification. Paul is so not a Judiazer, Tad. Thanks for this article it opens up better discussions which were settled in 1 Century apostolic era.
“….Anyone who returns to Law is a Judiazer and will fall short…..”
Birnie..
Did you mean to write — who returns to THE Law, as in the Law of Moses — is a Judaizer?
Surely you believe God still has “Laws”?
Christ’s Law for one.
Even Paul wrote, “let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.”
Jesus said, “….he who has My commandments and KEEPS them, is he who loves me……”
Surely you believe God still has standards (Laws*) that we must follow and keep.
*Laws and Commandments are synonymous in my opinion.
Westwin both versus you quote are NT verses and thus part of the New covenant and the enforce Testament. Paul does not write the Law but he says the things I write are commandments. The Law was proclaimed until John then grace and truth were revealed. That being, all NT commandments are what Christ commanded us. Matthew 28 Great commision, teaching them to obey all that I HAVE COMMANDED them. I hope that clarifies the commandments of the New are not the same as the Old.
birnie, have you ever considered that 2 Peter 3:15 is referring to people like yourself who cannot understand Paul’s explanation of the seeming paradox between grace and keeping the law? It would appear that Peter was well aware of those, like you, who cannot grasp the full import of Paul’s writings:
“And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”
Why does failure to understand Paul lead to your own destruction? Because you falsely believe that the Law is completely done away with, replaced by grace, allowing one to violate the law — that grace becomes a “get out of jail free card.”
Calorus, I take your point. Please help me to comprehend.
Matt: 17 “Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished!
You say until heaven an earth pass away. Yet it also says fulfilled/accomplished/completed. That is the Law. It must be!
Why do you not circumcise the newly born to enter the covenant? Because there is a change. Matthew said not one yod or tittle will pass until all is accomplished. As you rightly remove many yod and tittles in order to make that change. You all have accepted the change in the Law of yods and tittles in order to accept the New Covenant. Thus you do not circumcise.
See: you cannot have it both ways. Yods and tittles = a change.
This is how you know know heaven and earth have passed away. If not then circumcision is still active and enforceable. Yet we all know the apostles taught circumcision is no practised.
Perhaps you will hear Jesus: Luke 24:44
Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.” 45Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.…
On the cross He said it is finished. fulfilled accomplished. What the Law of course. Thus the changes were brought in under the death of the testators last will and Testament is now enforce. So yods and titles passed from the Law in accomplishment.
If it was not fulfilled then there is no New Testament. The Law demands righteousness and death to the wilful sinner. Will you kill someone for sinning. No! So the law has had a change in the punishment of the crime of sin. There is another yod and tittle that evaporates in the above articles proposal. Truth fear no inspection. Lets us reason: What happend to the yods and tittles? Please anyone?
birnie, your comments are obtuse and inscrutable. Sorry, I cannot follow what you are trying to say or understand your logic.
To answer that is easy read the first two chapters of Galatians. Peter feared the Jews and so separated himself when eating from the Gentiles.
Gal 2: 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
Fear of Jews being afraid made Peter and other Jews to return to the apartheid/segregation/ of the Law. Peter stood condemned by what Law? The Law of Christ and the Spirit or the Old Law of Moses? Clearly fear of Jews is what causes people to return to the Law.
“Clearly fear of Jews is what causes people to return to the Law.”
birnie, you must have written your own Bible. Give the verse that supports this idea. There are three verses that refer to “fear of the Jews” in the NT. John 7:13, John 19:38, and John 20:19. None of them refer to the Law or returning to the Law. By willfully sinning we fall back under the Law when we lose grace through a sacrifice for our sins. Hebrews 10:26-28 lays this out specifically:
“For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has ignored the Law of Moses is put to death without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.”
Stephanus. The very verse you quote shows Hebrew Christians returning to the Law and Gods warning to them is death by fire.
Hebrews 10: 26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Do you kill the wilful sinner.No that is the Law carried out in Gods wrath. Jerusalem was destroyed by fire and they were never regathered except as a synagogue of Satan.
Now Galatians 2:12 says clearly when the Jews.”For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the CIRCUMCISION GROUP. 13 The other JEWS joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.”
Surely these two verses prove fear of Jews and legalistic death is why people return to the Law of Apartheid.
fear and hypocrisy = Jews being present leading to weak taking Law. Paul was having no of that. There are two verses for you one you quoted the other did I quote previously. Great question. Hope that proves the point to you. Many people refused to call him the Christ for fear of the Jews. People fear death by Law more than life by free gift. Die to self righteouness.
“The length of any argument is proportional to its hollowness.”
Is that a quote from the Bible, or did you just make that up? The converse would be, “The shorter the argument, the more solid and profound”? For example, “I think, therefore I am.” Is that profound and persuasive to you, birnie? Your argument here is indeed short, but completely inscrutable and impossible to follow. You are not living up to your own standards.
A bit pedantic and I don’t see how this has anything to do with humanism and the destruction of the west by organized jewry.
I believe the “traditions of men” refers to the oral Talmud, and apparently Jews mistakenly believe that the Talmud is part of scripture.
“I believe the “traditions of men” refers to the oral Talmud, and apparently Jews mistakenly believe that the Talmud is part of scripture.”
You believe “the traditions of men” refers to the oral Talmud? What makes you believe that? Is there a verse in the Scriptures that makes you believe that? “Traditions of men” certainly can include such things as the oral Talmud and the Targums, but they are not confined to those ideas. Certain Christians have claimed “traditions of men” must refer to the Talmud to fit their agendas, such as those who falsely believe that the Pharisees were Edomites, but that doesn’t make it so.
Colossians 2:8 tells us what the “tradition of men” is, and that’s any “rudiments of the world” or elementary philosophies outside God in the Bible. “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.”
Those who falsely believe that the Pharisees were Edomites?
Seems an unnecessarily adversarial phrasing, why not drop the adverb and keep it genteel?
The case that there were Edomites among the priesthood is fairly strong, and disproving it has been a tough row to hoe. Lately on here I have seen the best case against it to date, Matthew 23, and I am still mulling that one over.
More and more I see why Paul advised us not to be caught up in useless arguments about genealogy and the law (Titus 3:9)
RB “The case that there were Edomites among the priesthood is fairly strong.”
Okay, indulge us, for those who don’t see the “fairly strong” case for Pharisees being Edomites, present your case….if it were as “strong” as you contend, it should be easy for you, and I certainly wouldn’t be asking. I am honestly interested in hearing you make the case. Please do….
Well Herod was an Edomite, and Josephus gives his account of Herod replacing chief men of Judea with his own. So I don’t think it is crazy to suppose that some pharisees and even priests were Edomites.
But, they were Adamic. And regarding those pharisees Christ and John confronted, those were Israelites. Christ came only to the lost sheep of Israel, and later sent Paul to the nations.
Just for interest sake — According to Josephus, Herod replaced the high priests only. He didn’t replace them with Edomites, but rather with Israelites of high priestly descent from Babylon.
Those who want the priests to be Edomites according to an agenda just ASSUME that those Babylonian high priests were Edomites. Josephus never states this at all.
Josephus indicates quite the opposite for the most part, although he does mention that one or two of the high priests were unknown or obscure. He doesn’t clarify what that means, but by the context it could mean that they were simply of an unrenowned family — Compared to the Hasmoneans who were very well known. That’s the best case scenario.
Worst case is that they weren’t real high priests, but I find that hard to believe considering how strict the Israelites were. As you say though, there’s really no reason to assume that the high priests who Herod instated were non-whites.
By the time the Judea was being run by the Romans directly, they were definitely instating Israelite high priests already living in Judea.
Bernie Sanderson, I would say that when Christians believe that the Law has been completely abolished, and no longer applies to them merely because they claim to “believe in Jesus” and be under “grace”, it opens the door to lawlessness, relativism, and sin — which describes Jewish humanism to a T.
It is mind-boggling to me that Christians can read these direct words of Christ and then just ignore them, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17).
And they can read Paul’s words in Romans 7:7 and essentially claim that the Law is unnecessary, “I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law.”
Just because we live under grace, the Law still applies, because when we backslide into sin, we lose that grace and fall back under the Law, and our sin becomes a death penalty, as Hebrews tells us, “For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,” (Hebrews 10:26)
Many judeos ignore this verse and instead insist that there is always a sacrifice for their sins, unconditionally because the Law no longer applies. This wrong way of thinking will lead Christians to not fear the consequences of their sins, and when that happens it throws our Christian nations into moral relativism and justification for any sin. It’s dangerous, and how we live today is proof of that.
“….This wrong way of thinking will lead Christians to not fear the consequences of their sins, and when that happens it throws our Christian nations into moral relativism and justification for any sin. It’s dangerous, and how we live today is proof of that…..”
Nailed it. And Jude would agree. Great synopsis.
Exactly, westwins….
“For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Jude 1:4)
Amen! Great comment.
I haven’t read the article yet but I will, just wanted to leave a quick comment.
I’d like to see a CFT article covering Romans 13 (Obey the authorities). Many Christians seem to misunderstand this and it is driving them to cuck to tyranny under the covid lie (typically it is the types that cuck on other essential issues like Race and who True Israel is so it’s difficult to even call them Christians but I digress). We are to obey the authorities and there is a hierarchy to things but there are limits and we must know when the line has been crossed from obeying to resisting. This simply is when the authorities are causing people to sin and are committing lawless acts themselves and contradicting Gods Law. There is of course the idea that covid and other tyranny is punishment from God for our collective falling away from Him so that factors into the equation. Anyway, just thought I’d mention it.
This article is a good explanation I think but I’d like to get CFT opinion as well.
https://davidschrock.com/2020/11/25/weighing-obedience-and-resistance-what-romans-13-does-and-does-not-affirm-about-governing-authorities/
We briefly covered Romans 13:1 in What Are The Signs Of The End Times?
Afterwards, we’d suggest reading Are We In The End Times — And If So, When Did They Begin?
In short, many of us have misunderstood Romans 13:1, because we do not understand what God’s intention is for this age. The two articles we’ve linked above will provide more clarity.