The Law of Christ

[bearbear]

According to verses like Col 2:14, the law of Moses was nailed to the cross:
"Having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."

In the New Covenant we are no longer under the law of Moses but grace. But why then does Paul refer to the law of Christ in Galatians and encourages us to fulfill it?

Galatians 6:2 "Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ"

Paul gives clues to what the law of Christ could be one chapter earlier:

Galatians 5:6 "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love."

So we know the law of Christ could be related to faith expressed as love. Jesus also sums up the law in Matthew 22:34-40 as loving God and loving neighbor so this could be the law of Christ.

Another clue is that Paul states multiple times in his epistles that we should still follow the moral portion of the ten commandments in verses like Galatians 5:19-21

"Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

If you think about it, the attributes described above are all opposed to love-- so the moral commandments could be seen as under the umbrella of "love". And in Jesus sermon on the mount He even brings the moral law higher to our hearts by teaching we should not hate our brother (OT version: murder) nor look at a woman with lust (OT version: adultery). Hebrews 4:1-11 even says that the Sabbath day points to entering God's rest through having faith. Paul also says we should honor our father and mother (Eph 6:2-3).

So in a sense we do follow all Ten commandments in the New Covenant but at a spiritual and heart level-- and not of ourselves but through the Holy Spirit by being born again (1 John 4:7). The law of Moses was nailed to the cross, but the commandments related to love carried over.

I think there was a misunderstanding by the LCs regarding the moral commandments not being carried over to the New Covenant and this has caused a lot of problems in the church.

1 John 4:7
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.

Jesus also sums up the law in Matthew 22:34-40 as loving God and loving neighbor so this could be the law of Christ.

Another clue is that Paul states multiple times in his epistles that we should still follow the moral portion of the ten commandments in verses like Galatians 5:19-21



If you think about it, the attributes described above are all opposed to love-- so the moral commandments could be seen as under the umbrella of "love". And in Jesus sermon on the mount He even brings the moral law higher to our hearts by teaching we should not hate our brother (OT version: murder).

So in a sense we do follow all Ten commandments in the New Covenant but at a spiritual and heart level-- and not of ourselves but through the Holy Spirit by being born again (1 John 4:7). The law of Moses was nailed to the cross, but the commandments related to love carried over.

I think there was a misunderstanding by the LCs regarding the moral commandments not being carried over to the New Covenant and this has caused a lot of problems in the church.

1 John 4:7
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.[/QUOTE]

Hi bear bear,

I'm afraid I don't agree that the so-called 'moral commandments' were carried over into the new covenant.

First of all, while I accept that there are 'carnal ordinances' contained in the LAW (tithing, for example, is identified as a "carnal commandment" in the epistle to the Hebrews), Paul tells us in his epistle to the Romans that the LAW is 'spiritual' (Romans 7: 14).

And what you call the 'moral commandments' are those commandments' that I would say fall into the category of the 'spiritual' aspect of the LAW.

In spite of this apparent dichotomy between the spiritual and carnal aspects of the LAW, the LAW itself is a complete whole and cannot be disintegrated.

James upholds this view when he writes:

"For whosoever shall keep the WHOLE LAW and yet offend in [just] ONE POINT shall be guilty of [breaking them] ALL. For He that said 'Do not commit adultery', said also, 'Do not kill' (Jas 2: 10-11).

And the Lord Jesus said the following regarding the same matter:

"..till heaven and earth pass ONE JOT or ONE TITTLE shall in no wise pass from the LAW..." (Matthew 5: 18).

It therefore figures that you absolutely cannot subdivide the LAW into 'moral commandments' on the one hand, and into commandments that are of a 'ceremonial' character on the other.

Such classifications only serve narrow academic objectives and are -or at least should be- intended only to enable learners and academics to better understand Scripture. They are a hermeneutic tool in much the same way that the number 'Pi' is useful to architects and engineers.

The LAW is an integer: a monolithic standard. It is NOT kept piecemeal. And was never intended to be.

And so no part of it is 'carried over' into the New Covenant.

"Christ is the END of the LAW for righteousness to everyone that believes" (Romans 10: 4)

But Jesus does give us a NEW COMMANDMENT. It is 'new' and is not something that has been 'carried over' from the Old Covenant.

Crucially, after letting his disciples know about his impending glorification, he says:

"..a NEW commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another" (John 13: 34)

A good number of Bible scholars often make the mistake of claiming that what Jesus says to his disciples here is a reiteration of the answer he gave to the lawyer-pharisee in Matthew 22: 36-40. That is not the case.

Firstly, his audience is quite different (verse 35 states explicitly that the lawyer was trying to "tempt" him). Secondly, in contrast to the exhortation to his disciples to love one another, with the lawyer Jesus simply quotes from what is written in the Old Testament. He does not even invite him to try and keep the two great commandments (he knows nobody can). He only explains that the whole LAW hangs on these two.

The 'love' spoken of in Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 is completely different from the 'love' that the Lord prescribes as a 'new commandment' in John 13: 34. The difference between them can be compared to that between the blood of bulls and goats, and the blood of Christ.

God's blessings

[aron]

Originally Posted by Humble Bricklayer

you absolutely cannot subdivide the LAW into 'moral commandments' on the one hand, and into commandments that are of a 'ceremonial' character on the other.

Such classifications only serve narrow academic objectives and are -or at least should be- intended only to enable learners and academics to better understand Scripture. They are a hermeneutic tool in much the same way that the number 'Pi' is useful to architects and engineers.

The LAW is an integer: a monolithic standard. It is NOT kept piecemeal. And was never intended to be. And so no part of it is 'carried over' into the New Covenant.

The single biggest error that has been carried forward, causing no small amount of dissension, confusion, and grief, has been the failure to realize that the writers of the NT, with perhaps the exception of Luke, were all law-keeping Jews.

The gospel message to the gentiles was that they (the gentiles) did not have to convert to Judaism to enter into the kingdom. The Jews, being Jews, continued to keep the law, whilst the gentile converts were not beholden, save the "royal law" to love one another (Ja 2:8). Yet the believing Jews kept the law to the grave.

What has happened in the Christian polity is that the gentiles kicked out the law-keeping Jews in the 3rd century, and have been arguing about keeping the law ever since.

[Ohio]

Regarding my beloved brothers and sisters who embrace THE LAW, I have found it well nigh impossible to obtain a decent definition of what the LAW actually is. Some annually embrace the Seder meal, yet have no allegiance to Kosher. Some pride themselves by “authentically” calling Him “Yeshua” rather than the “vulgar” Jesus Christ.

It always appears to me to be a “pick and choose” what they like from the Law to prove they are more spiritual than this lawless cretan “Ohio.” That’s OK, I still love them. I allow them their confusion. One time when mentioning Paul’s views on the subject from his letter to the Galatians, I was sternly asked, “why are you reading somebody else’s mail?”

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Regarding my beloved brothers and sisters who embrace THE LAW, I have found it well nigh impossible to obtain a decent definition of what the LAW actually is.

The most dangerous among these I think are the sabbatarians like SDA who say that Sabbath keeping on Saturday is "evidence" for Salvation. It does seem like this view could fall under Paul's warning in Galatian 5:1-6 that anyone trying to be justified by a part of the law of Moses can fall away from grace and be cut off from Christ since they will be obligated to keep the whole law.

This first post is actually a result of research of whether one should keep the Sabbath which is something that I had to be sure about because according to their position, Christians who worship on Sunday are not saved. Along the way I found a good page that thoroughly debunks Sabbath keeping as a requirement that I'm trying to share with SDA friends:

https://www.bible.ca/7-Col2-14-16.htm

And a good video I found on debunking Sabbath keeping which also covers some of Ellen G White's visions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XUae8yotvI

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by bearbear

The most dangerous among these I think are the sabbatarians like SDA who say that Sabbath keeping on Saturday is "evidence" for Salvation. It does seem like this view could fall under Paul's warning in Galatian 5:1-6 that anyone trying to be justified by a part of the law of Moses can fall away from grace and be cut off from Christ since they will be obligated to keep the whole law.

This first post is actually a result of research of whether one should keep the Sabbath which is something that I had to be sure about because according to their position, Christians who worship on Sunday are not saved. Along the way I found a good page that thoroughly debunks Sabbath keeping as a requirement that I'm trying to share with SDA friends:

https://www.bible.ca/7-Col2-14-16.htm

And a good video I found on debunking Sabbath keeping which also covers some of Ellen G White's visions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XUae8yotvI

Here’s my totally non-spiritual, but sociological, view of observing the Sabbath —

Keeping the Sabbath gave us American Football. And Golf.

You heard that right. Now hear me out. The American Christian public post-WW2 observed Sunday as their version of the Sabbath. It was “keep holy the Lord’s Day.” The Bible says so, eh? Since Sunday for Christians was the new holy Sabbath, we would go to church, and then the rest of the day we could not work. Americans worked M-F, did work around the house on Sat, then rested on Sunday after church. What should we do while we rest, with new TV’s in our homes? Watch them! And the NFL and the PGA capitalized on this.

There you have it, bearbear, keeping the Sabbath American style.

[bearbear]

I'm afraid I don't agree that the so-called 'moral commandments' were carried over into the new covenant.

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond Humble Bricklayer. I agree with you that we follow the law of Christ in the new covenant not at a carnal level but at a spiritual level (which I also tried to convey in the first post). You make some good points on avoiding the language of "carrying over the moral commandments". Perhaps I should have added "at a spiritual level" to make it clear. I agree we do not follow any of the law of Moses at a human / carnal level but only the law of Christ through the Holy Spirit who lives in us after we are born again which is made possible by Jesus' death on the cross as payment for the penalty of our sin which fulfilled the law. It seems like you would also agree though that we still need to follow Jesus' commands to love God and love neighbor and turn away from the sins mentioned in verses like Galatians 5:19-21 (through the Holy Spirit that lives in us and not at a carnal level)?

Ezekiel 36:26-27
I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

Originally Posted by bearbear

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond Humble Bricklayer. I agree with you that we follow the law of Christ in the new covenant not at a carnal level but at a spiritual level (which I also tried to convey in the first post). You make some good points on avoiding the language of "carrying over the moral commandments". Perhaps I should have added "at a spiritual level" to make it clear. I agree we do not follow any of the law of Moses at a human / carnal level but only the law of Christ through the Holy Spirit who lives in us after we are born again which is made possible by Jesus' death on the cross as payment for the penalty of our sin which fulfilled the law. It seems like you would also agree though that we still need to follow Jesus' commands to love God and love neighbor and turn away from the sins mentioned in verses like Galatians 5:19-21 (through the Holy Spirit that lives in us and not at a carnal level)?.

Hi bearbear,

Thanks for your feedback. I see that you're glued to your guns. That's not such a bad thing. "No man after drinking old wine desires new, for he says that the old is better" (Luke 5:39).

So, you say that you agree with me. Are you sure that you agree with me?

Because, actually I did not say that -and I quote- "we follow the law of Christ in the new covenant not at a carnal level but at a spiritual level". And yes, I know that you tried to convey this thought in your first post (which I read very carefully), but I emphatically DISAGREED with it.

Perhaps, you might like to revisit my post and re-read it a little more circumspectly. I went to great length, I think, to explain my position.

In a nutshell...

The Law of Moses is indivisible and irreducible.

What is the meaning and significance of this?

The significance is that though the Law of Moses reportedly contains up to 613 separate laws -of which the injunctions to 'love God with all your heart' and to 'love thy neighbor' are an integral part- in reality, it is ONE law (and here I'm not referring to the great commandment upon which all the others hang).

Why is the Law of Moses, with all his laws, really ONE law? Or more to the point, what is that ONE law?

The answer to that question is simply:

Observe, obey, and keep ALL 613 laws that are written in the Law that you are commanded to observe, obey, and keep. Do not disobey, do not fail to keep, even one little jot, one tiny tittle...for even a second.

Do this...and you shall have fulfilled the Law.

Don't just obey the Ten Commandments. Don't only keep a hundred laws. Don't only keep two hundred laws. Don't stop at three hundred or four hundred. Don't even stop at 612 and leave one undone. If, according as it is written, I should love God with all my heart and all my soul, and yet on one summer day plough my field with an ox and a donkey yoked together, then I am no better than a thief or a murderer. My love for God -under this regime- counts for absolutely nothing!

No. Follow all 613 injunctions...all the time!

That is the divine standard.

And then...you shall LIVE (this is crucial)

What is the point I'm trying to drive home here?

It's this...

You cannot wrench the two greatest commandments in the LAW and break them free from the other 611 laws (even if you intend to keep them by the power of the Holy Spirit). You can call these commandments "moral" or you can call them "spiritual" (and they are that, I don't disagree), but they are still bound together in a single package called the LAW. And if you're going to extract them from out of the Old Testament and bring them into the New, then you must of necessity bring along with them the remaining 611...and then you shall find yourself in the same dilemma that the Galatians fell into over the similar issue of circumcision. They were in danger of "falling from grace" and becoming "debtors to do the whole law" (Gal 5: 3-4).

...because the LAW is indivisible and irreducible.

And that is why the Lord Jesus speaks of a NEW commandment. It is NEW. And NEW means it is not, and never has been, OLD. If he were only re-introducing an old commandment written in the Old Testament, it would hardly be NEW. He gave us a NEW COMMANDMENT.

In illustration...

If I promised to buy you a brand NEW latest-model Range Rover and then presented you with a used and refurbished model from 1986 instead, it may still be a Range Rover -absolutely, but it certainly is NOT the car I promised you.

I leave you with the words of the Lord...

"No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old garment; otherwise he will tear the new garment, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old" (Luke 5: 36)

"And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish" (Luke 5: 37)

"But NEW wine must be put into NEW bottles; and both are preserved" (vv. 38)

God's blessings.

Originally Posted by Humble Bricklayer

Why is the Law of Moses, with all his laws, really ONE law? Or more to the point, what is that ONE law?

The answer to that question is simply:

Observe, obey, and keep ALL 613 laws that are written in the Law that you are commanded to observe, obey, and keep. Do not disobey, do not fail to keep, even one little jot, one tiny tittle...for even a second.

Do this...and you shall have fulfilled the Law.

Don't just obey the Ten Commandments. Don't only keep a hundred laws. Don't only keep two hundred laws. Don't stop at three hundred or four hundred. Don't even stop at 612 and leave one undone. If, according as it is written, I should love God with all my heart and all my soul, and yet on one summer day plough my field with an ox and a donkey yoked together, then I am no better than a thief or a murderer. My love for God -under this regime- counts for absolutely nothing!

No. Follow all 613 injunctions...all the time!

That is the divine standard.

It makes me think of a high school let's say chemistry test. I'm imagining that test has a hundred questions and the passmark is 100%. And the rule is if I get 50 answers right but get 50 wrong, I get 0%. And if I get 99 answers right but get only one wrong, I still get 0%. And the penalty for getting 0% is that the chemistry teacher is under instructions to gas you to death. Even if I were a genius I would be out of that class sooo fast.

I think the LSM full time training from what I've heard is a bit, or a lot like this.

One time someone I know, on the first day of training was commended highly for being the best out of all of them at organizing his socks very neatly in his sock drawer. A couple days later he was shamed and criticized before everybody for, I think it was -if memory serves me- having arranged the same socks (just as neatly, mind you) in the wrong color order. He was very discouraged. It emerged later that it was only done to trim him to size because they didn't want his earlier praise to inflate him. This is standard practice at the trainings.

So just as the law's purpose is to show you how weak and sinful you are to lead you to faith in Christ, so all the rules and regulations at the FTT's are purpose built to break you down to expose how weak and useless you are in your humanity, so that you may see your desperate need of The Ministry.

[aron]

Regarding Bricklayer's comments, they have validity except he fails to distinguish Jew from non-Jew. Peter kept the whole law, indivisible, as did Paul, as did James. But the main thrust of the NT gospel was that in Christ Jesus the gentiles have access through faith.

Paul wrote, "there is neither Jew nor Greek but one new man", but he also wrote that there was neither male nor female, and no more slave or free, but then he told females to be quiet and slaves to obey their masters. I may say, "I have neither right leg nor left leg (separated, apart, antagonistic) but they are one (coordinated, together) in my body". But I still have a right leg and a left leg. I still have two legs. If you see Paul writing in Ephesians 2:14, he even uses the word "two". He clearly differentiates, even while affirming commonwealth.

So with Jews and non-Jews in the NT. But what happened is that non- Jew church leaders became antagonistic against law-keeping Jewish believers, eventually against all law-keeping Jews (who were law-keeping by definition, it was their culture). Eventually we saw the Orthodox pogroms, the RCC inquisition, the Protestant holocaust, of non-Jew 'Christian' persecution of law-keeping Jew.

Regarding the law of Christ, I tried to affirm bear bear by saying that the royal law of James 2:8 showed Paul and James were holding forth the same gospel message. Love one another, not just lip service but in sharing with those who can't repay you. That was Jesus' core teaching. Give to those who cannot repay you. On this, hangs the law and the prophets.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by aron

If you see Paul writing in Ephesians 2:14, he even uses the word "two". He clearly differentiates, even while affirming commonwealth.

Thanks for sharing aron. I'm also sorry If I looked down on the law of Moses. I'm okay with my Messianic Jewish brethren celebrating their Sabbaths and feast days as long as they don't tie it any way to justification or salvation. There are a lot of scripture in the OT that suggests the same will be done during the millenial kingdom.

Also curious if you adhere to Commonwealth theology as an alternative to dispensationalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Theology

[DeadManWalkin]

Originally Posted by aron

Regarding Bricklayer's comments, they have validity except he fails to distinguish Jew from non-Jew. PETER KEPT THE WHOLE LAW INDIVISIBLE, AS DID PAUL, AS DID JAMES. But the main thrust of the NT gospel was that in Christ Jesus the gentiles have access through faith.

So with Jews and non-Jews in the NT. But what happened is that non- Jew church leaders became antagonistic against law-keeping Jewish believers, eventuall inky against all law-keeping Jews (who were law-keeping by definition, it was their culture). Eventually we saw the Orthodox pogroms, the RCC inquisition, the Protestant holocaust, of non-Jew 'Christian' persecution of law-keeping Jew.
.

I'm sorry, but this is complete nonsense!

What Bible are you reading, man? From where have you got this?

Paul warned constantly against 'law-keeping Jewish believers' (called Judaizers) in almost all his epistles. He was not charitable at all towards any of them. He even rebuked Peter in such strong terms for living like a Gentile and then pretending to live like a Jew when those from Jerusalem arrived at Antioch (Gal 2: 11-14).

And what did Peter say at the Council in Jerusalem over a question about the law? Here is what he said:

"And Peter rose up and said unto [the council], 'Men and brethren...God made choice among us that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God which knoweth the hearts bare them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as he did unto us AND PUT NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US AND THEM purifying their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the [Gentile] disciples, which [yoke] NEITHER OUR [Jewish] FATHERS, NOR WE, WERE ABLE TO BEAR?" (Acts 15: 7-11)

Does that look like Peter kept the whole law, indivisible? Really? seriously?

Give us a break, man.

Paul dedicated a whole epistle to proving the inferiority of the Mosaic law. He wrote it to Jewish believers who had turned back to the law. He gave them very stern warning that they were in mortal danger of crucifying the Son of God afresh, and putting him again to an open shame; a falling away from which it is impossible to repent (Hebrews 6:6), (c/f Hebrews 10: 26-29)

So, what this poster is promoting here as his 'take' on the Word carries with it very grave and serious consequences.

I'd advise you, poster 'aron', to read and familiarize yourself thoroughly with the epistle to the Hebrews.

Help yourself, too, to the Recovery Version's footnotes. I don't usually advise that, but in this instance it may prove to be helpful.



Okay, stepping back into the shadows, now.

Ciao.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Humble Bricklayer

You cannot wrench the two greatest commandments in the LAW and break them free from the other 611 laws

Sorry I didn't read your first post carefully the first time, especially the last paragraph. That is something I need to work on.

Okay I think I understand more now after reading carefully. Thanks for explaining again. So you're saying it's a brand new covenant without any vestiges of the old covenant and the love Jesus talks about in the New Covenant is higher than the love mentioned in the Old Covenant.

Old Covenant Love:

Lev 19:18
“You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.”

Deut 6:5
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

New Covenant Love:

John 13:34
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.

So the love in the Old Covenant is bounded by our own human capability to love, but the love in the New Covenant is the divine, selfless, agape love that comes from the Holy Spirit. Thanks for that insight, I haven't heard of that before.

I think God's ultimate desire is that we would return the love he gave us unconditionally. In the book of Hosea, God is broken hearted and is sad that Israel did not return His love so God does expect us to love him back. The thing is, how can you love something you can't see? And that's where I think faith (mental agreement + trust) comes in to bridge the divide between us and God to enable love. Faith, love and obedience cannot be separated because love and obedience are fruits of saving faith (John 3:36, Matthew 10:37). Jesus told Peter: "if you love me you will obey me". So faith results in love results in obedience.

The false disciples in Matthew 7:21-23 perhaps thought that their works were proof of their faith and were indignant at being shut out of heaven. But they got things in the wrong order by focusing on their works instead of faith which results in love which result in obedience. Jesus called them "workers of lawlessness" so they were disobedient and hence did not really have faith.

The church in Ephesus also had good works and maybe they thought that it was proof that they loved God, yet Jesus said they left their first love. The lesson here could be that we have to get things in the right order: focus on having faith so that we can receive God's love and give it back to him, and out of our love of Jesus we obey Him. And the way we love God is to love others, because when we love others we are actually loving Jesus himself as he described it in Matthew 25.

Interestingly some argue that the correct translation for the Greek word "pistis" translated to belief in English in New Testament times is "vow to faithful relationship" similar to the idea of a wedding vow so faith and love are tightly intertwined in this interpretation of faith:
https://thelogosofagape.wordpress.co...ek-word-study/

Romans 5:5
And hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us.

1 Cor 13:1
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Humble Bricklayer

The significance is that though the Law of Moses reportedly contains up to 613 separate laws -of which the injunctions to 'love God with all your heart' and to 'love thy neighbor' are an integral part- in reality, it is ONE law (and here I'm not referring to the great commandment upon which all the others hang).

Hi HB, I'm doing some more research on your position and I read Galatians again and came across this passage in Galatians 5:13-14:
"For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”"

Here Paul is quoting Leviticus 19:18 and says that this commandment fulfills the law. He didn't quote Jesus' new command in John 13:34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." The implication could be that Paul treats these two commands as the same, perhaps because in the New Covenant we have the Holy Spirit living in us so we are able to love our neighbor with God's agape love.

Paul also reiterates in Galatians 5:6 that only faith & love counts:
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love."

So any commandment related to love is probably good in Paul's eyes because love comes from God which John writes about.

1 John 4:7-8
"Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. "

[Nell]

OK folks. It’s time to dial it back a little. Everyone has an opinion/interpretation. There is no need for name calling or vitriol aimed at those you disagree with. Please read the Mission Statement again, or maybe you’ve never read it.

Nell
Admin/Moderator

Originally Posted by bearbear

Hi HB, I'm doing some more research on your position and I read Galatians again and came across this passage in Galatians 5:13-14:
"For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”"

Here Paul is quoting Leviticus 19:18 and says that this commandment fulfills the law. He didn't quote Jesus' new command in John 13:34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

The implication could be that Paul treats these two commands AS THE SAME, perhaps because in the New Covenant we have the Holy Spirit living in us so we are able to love our neighbor with God's agape love.

Paul also reiterates in Galatians 5:6 that only faith & love counts:
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love."

So any commandment related to love is probably good in Paul's eyes because love comes from God which John writes about.

1 John 4:7-8
"Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. "

Hi bear bear,

That's a good observation, on your part. I agree that "any commandment' related to love is probably good in Paul's eyes". But then again, I suppose that all the commandments were good in his eyes. And they should be good in our eyes as well. Let's be clear: Paul never condemned the LAW as bad or evil. On the contrary, in his epistle to the Romans he called the LAW "holy, righteous, and good" (Romans 7:12)

The heart of the problem lies in our interaction with the LAW. And that, he warned firmly against. He explains why in that whole chapter (Rom 7). He states that whenever he would set his will to do good, to obey some commandment out of the LAW, he always found that in that action of obeying the law ANOTHER LAW would swing immediately into action.

He suddenly discovered that within him there existed THE LAW OF SIN. And that this 'law' was activated, made alive, and given legs by what he had just a few verses earlier called "holy, righteous, and good", that is the LAW OF MOSES.

Did he condemn the LAW after that discovery? No he didn't. But to his disappointment he recognized that what God had intended for good, and had ordained for life, when he reached out to lay hold of it, in obedience, instead resulted in bondage and death (he gives the personal example of how the Old Testament "moral commandment", 'Thou shalt not covet' wreaked havoc with him), (Romans 7: 7-12).

Paul appreciates the LAW, nevertheless, he is wary of it. In the epistle to the Corinthians he calls its ministry, 'THE MINISTRY OF CONDEMNATION' and 'THE MINISTRY OF DEATH' meaning instead of ministering life, it ministers condemnation and death. Yet, in spite of that, he still describes this ministry, the LAW, as being glorious (2 Corinthians 3: 7-9).

Paul also writes:

"The sting of death is sin and the STRENGTH of SIN is the LAW" (1 Corinthians 15: 56)

Yes, the LAW is good. But it is no good for us.

I've just remembered this in connection with that:

There was a television show back in the eighties -you're probably too young to know about it- called 'Alienation', starring James Caan (a Hollywood heavyweight at the time).

It was science fiction, and it was about a bunch of aliens (about a million of them) who'd fled their home planet in a humongous ship that came and landed over Los Angeles (yes, the immigration problem started way back then &#128540. The aliens were humanoid, super strong, technologically advanced, and 'could speak English'. They adapted, and were assimilated into human society, and became like normal humans, going to school, getting jobs, getting into trouble, et cetera.

But they had one fatal weakness. Planet earth is covered up to 70% in precious water -absolutely crucial and necessary to all life on earth. But to the aliens the oceans were like seas of sulphuric acid: they dissolved in water. They wouldn't get within a mile of a beach out of sheer terror! Imagine that. That something intended for good and lavished liberally on the planet by its Creator, and without which all life on earth would die, became to these aliens nothing but death.

Not a perfect parallel, I know, but the point is clear. We are the Alien Nation and the LAW is a Sea of Sulphuric Acid to us. So why would we ever want to go to the beach?

So, back to the issue you raised in your post.

Is the LAW good in Paul's eyes? Yes.

Does Paul view the Old Testament command to 'love thy neighbor as thyself' through the same lens as the New Testament command to 'love thy neighbor as thyself'? No.

Does he "treat them the same"? Well, we have just outlined Paul's own personal experience with the LAW as he laid it out. So, absolutely not!

But Paul said, "..by love serve one another; for the whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, love thy neighbor as thyself'

There are a number of issues here, bear bear. But I don't want to get too long-winded. I'm aware that your TikTok generation has a general problem with attention span, and what I'll get into might be too much to digest in one sitting.

But I can give a brief outline:

1. There needs to be a consideration of the immediate context of these words (preferably Gal 4:21 - 6:2)
2. In Hermeneutics there's what's called the 'Principle of First Mention'. This principle can be limited and applied to the whole epistle to the Galatians to better gauge this one verse.
3. There needs to be an appreciation of Paul's Literary Style more generally, including his narrative techniques, his use of imagery, and his use of stylistic devices. All his writings are peppered in this manner.
4. This is more subjective and is chiefly my own opinion, but I think we need to have a discussion over the apparent legal paradox of this verse, the paradox being: Paul says that by love the whole law is fulfilled. But does that necessarily mean that by fulfilling the whole law, that that leads to love?

Paul claimed, in his epistle to the Philippians, that while he still subscribed to the Jewish religion, that as 'touching the righteousness that is in the LAW, he was BLAMELESS' (Phil 3:6). So zealous was he to 'fulfill the LAW', in fact, that it led him to a murderous hatred (the opposite of love) of those who confessed the name of Jesus.

So, we know his personal, lived experience was that 'fulfilling the LAW to the point of 'blamelessness' DOES NOT lead to love. But then WHY does he tell the Galatians to serve each other in love and still mention the LAW?

And whatever the LAW tells you to do, that you must do. If it tells you to love your neighbor, then that you must ensure you do. But Paul knows through his own experience that it can't be done. But he quotes it anyway.

Why?

Why didn't he just say 'hey, Jesus gave us a new commandment, love one another'? Why urge the Galatian believers to follow the LAW by quoting the LAW?

Of course, I don't believe that. But if, actually, you believe that Paul held the New Commandment (as given by Jesus, in John 13) to be the same as the Old Testament commandment, then, by necessity, this is the rabbit-hole you MUST go down. It is the logical outworking of a stated position like that. But it makes no sense.

The explanation is that this verse cannot be interpreted correctly without a proper and careful consideration of its context.

...which I'll try and achieve next time with the other three points.

God's blessings

[aron]

Originally Posted by Humble Bricklayer

You cannot wrench the two greatest commandments in the LAW and break them free from the other 611 laws (even if you intend to keep them by the power of the Holy Spirit). You can call these commandments "moral" or you can call them "spiritual" (and they are that, I don't disagree), but they are still bound together in a single package called the LAW. And if you're going to extract them from out of the Old Testament and bring them into the New, then you must of necessity bring along with them the remaining 611...and then you shall find yourself in the same dilemma that the Galatians fell into over the similar issue of circumcision. They were in danger of "falling from grace" and becoming "debtors to do the whole law" (Gal 5: 3-4).

...because the LAW is indivisible and irreducible.

I think that I understand your points better. Initially I thought that you meant that we (the readers) must keep all the law, now I see you saying that we (like the Galatians) can't keep all the law, and thus shouldn't try to keep parts of it to the exclusion of others.

There's a lot there, actually, and in seizing upon the wrong sentence or phrase, and forcing it through our mental model, may cause us to contrast ourselves with something that's not there. Which, as I said, probably happens a lot.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Humble Bricklayer

.. in contrast to the exhortation to his disciples to love one another, with the lawyer Jesus simply quotes from what is written in the Old Testament. He does not even invite him to try and keep the two great commandments (he knows nobody can). He only explains that the whole LAW hangs on these two.

The 'love' spoken of in Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 is completely different from the 'love' that the Lord prescribes as a 'new commandment' in John 13: 34. The difference between them can be compared to that between the blood of bulls and goats, and the blood of Christ.

I find that the categorical statement is categorically wrong. Jesus kept the law. That is why his death was held as acceptable and substitutionary. The love of Deuteronomy and Leviticus was kept by Jesus, and none other. His love is the love of God.

What happens instead is that we dismiss Scripture. "All men have fallen short of the glory of God." and "All men are sinners." All men but one. If it were truly all men then we would have no hope.

"I love the LORD for He has heard my voice" Psalm 116 "He brought me into a spacious place; He rescued me, because He delighted in me." Psalm 18. We can either say, "No, the psalmist didn't love the LORD at all, and the LORD didn't delight in the psalmist" because the psalmist was a sinner. All men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

We could say that. But that would kind of miss the whole point of the New Testament. Jesus loved the Father. The Father delighted in Jesus. "This is My Son, the Beloved, in whom I delight. Hear Him."

Anyone who says, "Nobody can keep the law" is saying "Jesus could not keep the law". I find this concept to be directly at odds with the entire testimony of the Bible. Not only wrong but completely mis-aiming.

[UntoHim]

“The Gospel does not abrogate God's law, but it makes men love it with all of their hearts.”
J. Gresham Machen
~
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
KJV
Think not that I am come to make void the law or the prophets; I am not come to make void, but to fulfil.
Darby
Do not think that I have come to do away with or undo the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to do away with or undo but to complete and fulfill them.
Amplified
(Matthew 5:17)

Originally Posted by aron

Jesus kept the law. That is why his death was held as acceptable and substitutionary.

The simple truth is that "The Law of Christ" was nothing more, or nothing less, than the Law of the Father - AKA The Law that was referred to in the Torah since the beginning. When the Lord Jesus proclaimed "A new commandment I give unto you", he was neither destroying, making void or doing away with the basic tenets of The Law - in fact he was fulfilling the Law. Now, if the Lord Jesus, our example, did not destroy, make void or do away with "the perfect law of liberty" (James 1:25) - and neither did the original apostles - then how shall we even begin to think this would be our supposed assignment, much, much less mandate?

Yes, I believe Machen was right on - The Gospel does not abrogate God's law, on the contrary, it makes us love it with all our hearts. This is one of the reasons I think our friend aron can speak to this so convincingly here on this thread - the Psalms are full of The Law. One could argue that one of the main themes of the Psalms is the saints love for the Law. (aron can correct me on this for sure!) It never ceases to amaze me how so many of the (successful) governments of the world are based on laws - - yet many of us modern day Christians seem to think that God's government is not as strictly based on laws? Just sayin...
-

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The Gospel does not abrogate God's law, on the contrary, it makes us love it with all our hearts. This is one of the reasons I think our friend aron can speak to this so convincingly here on this thread - the Psalms are full of The Law. One could argue that one of the main themes of the Psalms is the saints love for the Law. (aron can correct me on this for sure!) It never ceases to amaze me how so many of the (successful) governments of the world are based on laws ..

The best way for Christians to understand scripture is to see how Jesus and his disciples remarked on it. Jesus said, "These things (law, prophets, psalms) were written concerning me." See, Luke 24:44&c. Now, we don't then take this mechanically, as some allege we do. "His bishopric another take" was revealed in the NT as referring to the traitor Judas. And the repentant David of psalm 51 did not typify Christ.

But the question still remains about how a Christian expository ministry that so liberally saw "Christ" in the windows of Noah's ark and in the boards and silver sockets of Moses' ark of the covenant could not discern Christ in the expression of fealty to God's law. Psalm 1, according to Lee, was vain, because no one can keep the law. If this is true, then Christ died in vain because he was a sinner, like us. Yet the NT record unequivocally refutes that.

The psalmist wrote, "Oh, how I love Your law" and this could only be fulfilled by Jesus the Nazarene (Psalm 119:97). Jesus is the Christ, the singular Son of David who fulfils the promise. When James said that the Jerusalem cohort were zealous for the law, it was like saying that I'm writing in English - it's an artifact of circumstance. Their zeal could not save them any more than my not following the law abrogates my salvation. In all cases, repentance and faith unto confession equally apply, "to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.".

When I see psalm 119, I see Jesus. I hear his voice. "My sheep hear my voice." And I do, somewhat vicariously appreciate God's law thru Christ. But only thru Christ. And his law, to love one another, rules supreme. It doesn't overturn but fulfills all, subsumes all, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

[aron]

I was reading Acts 6:1, where the "Grecians" (KJV) were muttering against the Hebrews, as their widows lost out in the daily dispensation. I think it's also translated Hellenists or Hellenistic Jews, meaning those law-keeping Jews who were from the diaspora and were back in town. (Some of them were probably from the international cohort that was saved on Pentecost).

Then in v. 5 they pick deacons to wait on tables, including one Nicolas, "a proselyte from Antioch." My understanding is that he would have been a Greek anchored to the Hebrew faith, and now observed their laws and customs, yet without full membership, as he wasn't born Hebrew.

All of this changed, of course, after Peter met Cornelius and Paul got converted. Paul's ministry stressed that non-Jews didn't have to keep the law, and had full rights and privileges in the church.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by bearbear

...

I think there was a misunderstanding by the LCs regarding the moral commandments not being carried over to the New Covenant and this has caused a lot of problems in the church.
...

Your topic seems to have gone awry from this comment which appears to be the purpose you were attempting to discuss. How does this comment fit your Opening Post in relation to the title "The Law of Christ"? Am I misreading your OP?

What misunderstanding of what moral commandment/s are causing what problems in the LC?

Here's an example to consider:
1. Suppose someone created a forum for discussion of ...anything... .
2. Suppose the forum owner requested that those who desire to join the discussion register as members.

Most who want to join the discussion comply to the request by registering as members.

Some do not register for membership, yet continue to post as "unregistered" or "Guest", expecting the owner to approve their posts anyway...that is...grant "grace" to them while they operate "outside the law".

Suppose the forum owner considered the value of the posts by non-registered to be significant enough to allow the "unregistered" to continued to post anyway...outside the "law". Or, the forum owner continues to extend "grace" to some, to the detriment of the functioning of the forum.

In this example, I'm attempting to bring in the matter of the conscience to the discussion. Does the Law of Christ operate outside the conscience? There is not only a misunderstanding in the LC but in the populace in general. The LC offends the conscience of others to the extent that the conscience becomes seared, demanding that others obey them...LC leadership...rather than God.

Here's a question for you. Do the written verses in the Bible override what God Himself speaks to you personally in your walk, your relationship with him and his relationship with you?

Nell

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Nell

In this example, I'm attempting to bring in the matter of the conscience to the discussion. Does the Law of Christ operate outside the conscience? There is not only a misunderstanding in the LC but in the populace in general. The LC offends the conscience of others to the extent that the conscience becomes seared, demanding that others obey them...LC leadership...rather than God.

Being a church kid, I'm not as familiar with LC theology as the other posters here so I can't contribute very well in that area and will let other posters step in. But from the way that the Christian life is carried out in the LCs, from what I observe, oneness or zeal for the ministry and winning converts seems to be the top priority in practice and not the law of Christ which is based on love and avoiding sin (which is not loving).

One example I remember was when Titus Chu said that he was sad that there were too many Chinese in the church and he wanted more Caucasians implying that Caucasians were of more value than Chinese. This statement was pretty unloving and seemed to reveal that his heart prioritized winning converts rather than love. As a leader, the principles such as this that he affirmed through his words and practice likely carried over to the rest of the flock. I can't imagine the leadership or the pastors at my current (undercover) Baptist church say anything like this without backlash.

Matthew 23:15
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves."

(Note: I'm in no way advocating that Titus Chu is a Pharisee or unsaved, this verse just came to mind. Only God knows Titus' heart and we should pray for him.)

Originally Posted by Nell

Here's a question for you. Do the written verses in the Bible override what God Himself speaks to you personally in your walk, your relationship with him and his relationship with you?

Nell

If the voice I'm hearing is directly contradicting scripture it might come from Satan so in those cases I think I'd need to ask God for confirmation that it's really from him because it could also be that I'm misinterpreting scripture like Peter did when he was on the roof and saw the vision with the animals on a great sheet.

Most of the time my own struggle is that, sometimes God puts desires in my heart that are aligned with what I want to do, but other times they are opposed to it because of my flesh. In those cases I've been learning to ask God to change my heart so that I will want do his will.

Have you ever come across an experience where you felt God speaking to you in a way that contradicted scripture?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by bearbear

...
If the voice I'm hearing is directly contradicting scripture it might come from Satan so in those cases I think I'd need to ask God for confirmation that it's really from him because it could also be that I'm misinterpreting scripture like Peter did when he was on the roof and saw the vision with the animals on a great sheet.
...
Being a church kid, I'm not as familiar with LC theology as the other posters here so I can't contribute very well in that area and will let other posters step in. But from the way that the Christian life is carried out in the LCs, from what I observe, oneness or zeal for the ministry and winning converts seems to be the top priority in practice and not the law of Christ which is based on love and avoiding sin (which is not loving).
...
One example I remember was when Titus Chu said that he was sad that there were too many Chinese in the church and he wanted more Caucasians implying that Caucasians were of more value than Chinese. This statement was pretty unloving and seemed to reveal that his heart prioritized winning converts rather than love. As a leader, the principles such as this that he affirmed through his words and practice likely carried over to the rest of the flock. I can't imagine the leadership or the pastors at my current (undercover) Baptist church say anything like this without backlash.

This remark from TC I would put a question mark on. Then, I might privately
and respectfully ask TC for an explanation. You might even tell him "Is it your intention to imply that Caucasians are of more value than Chinese? Did I misunderstand your comment?"

We should always seek confirmation from God.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
Matt. 18:15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

While TC's words really don't rise to the level of "sin" (I don't think), we should be accountable for our words.

Sometimes God puts desires in my heart that are aligned with what I want to do, but other times they are opposed to it because of my flesh. In those cases I've been learning to ask God to change my heart so that I will want do his will.

This is healthy.

Have you ever come across an experience where you felt God speaking to you in a way that contradicted scripture?

No. Nothing comes to mind. Many, maybe most, of my experiences today are much simpler. Lord, should I go to "this" movie? Or, Lord, are you sure you want me to ... do "this"? Lord, I don't think I understand this verse. I think it means .... this. Please give me your understanding. Test all things.

I'll refer back to my simpler example about registering for the forum. While this request does not rise to the level of scripture, it's a reasonable request from a brother who is offering a free service to all, with only a simple request to comply with forum rules and by registering for membership. "Lord, do you want me to register for the forum, or do you want me to ignore this request from the owner.

This practice of testing and obedience to the Lord's speaking is closer to my experiences with him on a daily basis.

Another help regarding the word is to understand that our reading and studying results in our interpretation of scriptures. Witness Lee believed that his interpretation was binding and the final authority. Also, a single verse has a context of maybe many other verses which needs to be considered.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Nell

This remark from TC I would put a question mark on. Then, I might privately
and respectfully ask TC for an explanation. You might even tell him "Is it your intention to imply that Caucasians are of more value than Chinese? Did I misunderstand your comment?"

He probably didn't mean it literally like that, but his statement probably still hurt people as it was seared into my memory to this day. As someone who is Chinese that has faced discrimination in college admissions and elsewhere in the workplace for being perceived as "over-represented" it seems cruel that the same mindset would carry over to the church which is supposed to be a safe place of love.

Originally Posted by Nell

While TC's words really don't rise to the level of "sin" (I don't think), we should be accountable for our words.

I believe it is a serious sin to treat people differently based on race or class according to the principles in James 2, nevertheless I forgive Titus and thank him for the help he gave our family and protecting the Midwest LCs from some of the worst excesses of LSM. I just brought it up as an example for discussion.

"1. My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. 2 For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, 3 and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” 4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?"

[bearbear]

Other examples of LC practice violating the law of Christ is not helping the poor.

They twisted Mark 14:7 to mean that the church has no responsibility to help the poor.

Mark 14:7 "For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. But you will not always have me."

But if you read carefully, the implication was that Jesus was always involved in ministry to the poor, and Mark 14:7 was the exception not the rule.

Galatians 2:10 "Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do."

Why did the LC ignore verses like Galatians 2:10 which clearly shows we should not forget the poor and needy? I think it's because so much of scripture contradicts LC theology that people just turn off their minds like I once did when I read the bible and instead interpret through the lens of fallible commentary and church tradition.

Although the example I gave earlier is not the best, it is along the lines of thinking that the LC always prioritized getting the right type of converts by focusing on college students and "working saints" rather than the outcasts of society which violates James 2 as well.