What does it mean to be "under the law"?

[8thdaypriest]

Romans 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. (NIV)

Romans 6:14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. (NIV)

Romans 6:15  What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! (NIV)

1 Corinthians 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. (NRS)

1 Corinthians 9:21  To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law) so that I might win those outside the law. (NRS)

Comment:  "outside the law" seems to refer to Gentiles who are ignorant of "the law"

Galatians 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. (NKJ)

Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, (NRS)

Galatians 4:5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. (NKJ)

Comment:  "under the law" cannot mean "under (the condemnation of) the law" because Jesus was "born under the law", and He was NOT under condemnation. 

Comment:  In 4:5, it sounds as if one is NOT yet adopted as a son, so long as he is still "under the law" (guarded by the schoolmaster)

Galatians 4:21 Tell me, you who desire to be subject to the law, will you not listen to the law?

Comment:  Here the translator equates "under the law" with "subject to the law". 

Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. (NKJ)

 

Comment:  I do not agree with those who say that "the law" in Galatians refers only to the Oral Torah. 

[JoeMo]

"You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. ² I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? ³ Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?^{[a] 4} Have you experienced^[b] so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 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." (Gal 3:1-6

"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.  Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. ³ Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. ⁴ You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." (Gal. 5:1-4)

I infer from these passages in Galatians and those quoted by Rachel that we have 2 choices - either to live under the grace, mercy, and forgiveness of Jesus Christ by trusting in him through faith, or live in perfect compliance to the entire OT law in order to "earn" your salvation.  I'll take the former, please!  Peter even admitted that it was difficult if not impossible to keep the whole law:

"Why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? ¹¹ No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” (Acts 15:10-11)

[8thdaypriest]

The "law" in Galatians CANNOT be the Oral Torah, because Paul wrote that "the law was our schoolmaster (tutor/ disciplinarian/ guardian) to bring us to Christ" (Galatians 3:24). 

How could the Oral Torah of the Scribes and Pharisees, bring anyone to Christ?  It did not symbolize anything.  It did not clarify the symbols already given in the Law of Sacrifices and Feasts. 

It just resulted in something akin to a corrupt police state. 

[Robert]

To be under the jurisdiction of the law.  To be ruled by the law.  To be bound to the law.

[8thdaypriest]

34 minutes ago, jackson said:

We are all born under the law as were Adam and Jesus. If we sin the sentence is death. We and Adam sinned, but by grace that gives faith to believe and accept  Christ as our Lord and Savior we are given pardon- hence we are no longer under the law (its standard of righteousness ). That does not mean we no longer  have a duty to keep the law. We certainly do, but obedience to the law is no longer meritorious because we have already broken it. We now can only be saved by grace. But grace does not sanction disobedience by annulling the law. No one can be saved in willful disobedience to the ten commandments.

Jesus righteousness depended on his keeping the law. He had no savior in case of failure, therefore his law keeping was meritorious as was Adam's before the faith. Jesus was never under grace, but under the law until His death. He could only be the prefect sacrifice if he led a spotless life by keeping the commandments of God.

Jackson,  I hear you saying that God has a law.  I agree.  I believe the Law of God (summarized for Israel as 10 Commands) existed from eternity, and will exist for eternity.  Israel agreed to abide by that Law, when they entered into covenant with Yahweh.  They failed - and so do we (hopefully less and less as we grow in Christ). 

The Israelites (and Jesus too) lived under the TERMS of "the Law", which said essentially, "You sin - you die."   This was "the law" in the garden.  Moses repeated it over and over.  "Choose life (by obeying)" - "for why will ye die?"  The Law was essentially OBEY and live, or DISOBEY and die. 

I think the phrase "under the law", essentially means "under law alone" (without the forgiveness found in Christ).  Forgiveness is available ONLY THROUGH Christ.  If one rejects Christ, he is left to the penalty dictated by "the law". 

It's not about whether we should seek to keep the law.  It's about what happens to one who breaks that law. 

"The law" can guide and it condemns.  It cannot forgive.  It cannot give life.

If one has found Christ (and is therefore led by the spirit), he is not "under the law" (alone). 

 

[8thdaypriest]

10 hours ago, jackson said:

"Under law alone" is a very succinct way of describing it. Do you mind if I borrow it for my own use? 

i agree with almost all you have said, but I don't think I understand  why we should not make it of great importance to seek to keep the law..

Should we not live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, and is that not a description of living by faith? Is that not the essence of love for God?

There's a study on my website which references the Ten Commands in the New Testament (Apostolic Writings).    http://prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/40d-Ten Commands in NT.pdf

Of course we should "try" to keep the 10 Commands.  And we should study to know what behavior God desires of us.  It's just that Christ's commands went far beyond the Ten.  "Love your enemies" and "do good to those who persecute you", and don't even look on a woman to lust after her.    It is NOT POSSIBLE to keep these things unless empowered by the spirit. 

The element of FEAR is very real for those who do not understand grace.  I have a friend who was brought up Catholic.  She is almost 50 now, and only last year came to understand the full and free grace available to us, just by believing in Jesus.  She is no longer constantly AFRAID that God will reject her is she doesn't get it just right.  This has set her free to ENJOY living in God's way.  Keeping the commandments, yes, but looking to Jesus to give her new depth of understanding, and His indwelling spirit to motivate and empower. 

[8thdaypriest]

Jesus is the one mediator BETWEEN God and us. 

And Jesus is the one buffer BETWEEN God's law and us. 

[debbym]

Jesus intercedes between me and death, between me and the power of sin, between me and my sin.  He is my shield, my righteousness, my strength to know and do God's will.

The sin that would bring me death, that would separate me from God, He carries and lifts away, and sets me free from the law of condemnation and death and offers me the law of the Spirit that i might live not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

as far as the east is from the west so far has he removed my transgressions from me.

Jesus was born in sinful flesh, yet he never participated in sin, never chose it, never performed it, but His flesh was fallen human flesh... is this under the law?  He walked by the Spirit in the flesh.  He was made flesh and walked among us.  He became our brother in order to qualify to save us.

[8thdaypriest]

 

1 hour ago, jackson said:

Yes, but that was not the point i was addressing. You said "we should not make it of great importance to seek to keep the law.. ". That is like saying we should not make it of great importance to do God's will for us.

 

I NEVER said that!

This is what I did say about the phrase "not under the law".   

20 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

It's not about whether we should seek to keep the law.  It's about what happens to one who breaks that law. 

"The law" can guide and it condemns.  It cannot forgive.  It cannot give life.

If one has found Christ (and is therefore led by the spirit), he is not "under the law" (alone). 

 

                        God (and His Law)

                        me - (dead) standing in His presence.

                        OR INSTEAD

                         God

                       Christ (between)

                         me - not dead

To stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator - THAT is what it means to be "under the Law".   With Christ I am NOT directly "under the Law (God)".  I am "under grace" because I am "under Christ". 

OF course I believe it is important to learn what God wants (concerning our behavior).  Of course it is important to "try" to keep His law. 

Our efforts unlock the power pathway for the spirit, which then enables our success.  It's like our efforts throw a switch, allowing the power to flow thru us, so long as we remain constantly AWARE that we can claim no credit for our success.   As Paul said, "Christ in me - the hope of glory."  The moment we take our eyes off Him, our faith will falter and we begin to sink (just like Peter). 

[8thdaypriest]

Jackson,

Every person out there may not be ABLE to "resist unto blood".  God knows what each of us is capable of, and He makes up for what we lack "with His own divine merit". 

I also believe that sins committed in genuine ignorance, are covered by the blood of Christ, until such time that the sins become "known".  

I do NOT believe that human beings will be "perfect" or perfectly reflect the character of Christ, or "bring every thought unto the subjection of Christ" UNTIL they have spent 1000 years in the healing environment of Heaven.  There is just too much damage in our minds, which will still be there after our bodies are made new. 

The whole teaching that the church must become "perfect" so then Jesus can return to claim them - I believe - is WRONG.  Absolutely WRONG. 

I do NOT believe in "cheap grace" - that is grace alone (without any human co-operation or effort).  Peter did get out of the boat.  And he walked a few steps.  He made the effort, based upon faith.  

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, jackson said:

Rachel,

It is not about what you or i believe. You just give me your ideas with no backing from scripture. Show me from scripture that God's grace is insufficient for the perfecting of the saints. Show me from scripture where it is not possible in this life to fulfill the requirements that Jesus, through Paul, envisioned for us.

Eph 4:11    And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;   4:12    For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:   4:13    Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

 

Jackson,

You quoted the KJV "perfecting of the saints".  Almost every other translation says "equipping the saints for the work of the ministry". 

The context of Ephesians 4:11-12, is the gifts and roles that God appointed in the "church" (the body) for the work of the ministry.  The context is NOT about individuals reaching sinlessness, prior to Christ's return. 

I would put it back on you Jackson.  PROVE that individuals can reach perfection (sinlessness) of thought and behavior, prior to the return of Jesus in the clouds (without using any EGW quotations). 

I DO BELIEVE those who are redeemed WILL reach such a state.  The question concerns WHEN.  I do not believe it will happen prior to the SC.  I believe we need a long period of healing, and a lot of indepth education and insight, before we will all be able to  "think like" Jesus - perfectly.   

[Kevin H]

One discovery over the past few decades includes new information on the Synagogue of the freemen. They were not a typical Jewish synagogue They were either people or decedents of people  who were in slavery. They had to work 7 days a week for a number of years. At the end of these years of faithful service they were given their freedom and full Roman Citizenship.

Since they had to work 7 days a week and eat what ever they were fed, now that they had their freedom they wanted to prove that they were better Jews than even the most conservative Pharisees. They became a far right wing hate group. They called this trying to show that they were better Jews than any Jew who was living in the land "The works of the law" Thus being under the law can mean the competition of some Jews to prove that they are better Jews than any others.

 Salvation is not a one-ups-manship of who keeps the different aspects of the law. Salvation is a relationship with the source of all life. The trinity exists in a righteousness by faith relationship based on the law of self sacrificing love.

The Law of God is self-sacrificing/self renouncing love. That's it.

Now we can ask what this means so we have the two great principles of loving God supremely and our neighbors as ourselves.

This moves on to the question of how do we do this and we get the 10 commandments. Apparently God gave only 10 words on Mt. Sinai. And from what I've heard in my Old Testament classes, there are different lists in the Bible based on the 10 words. The best known list is Exodus 20. Exodus 20 can be broken into 3 thirds. The first third consists of 3 commandments on how to love God supremely. It describes the role of God the Father. The last third consists of 6 commandments on how to love our neighbor as ourselves. This describes the role of the Holy Spirit in changing us into loving and loveable people. The middle third consists of one commandment that ties the two principles together and that the only way you can love God supremely and your neighbor as yourself is through resting in a friendship, a relationship with God. The Sabbath commandment describes the ministry of Jesus.

I do not believe in the 2 law theory "The law of God is the 10 commandments and then there is the law of Moses."  As pictured above it is a general to specific. The "minutia" developed by Moses and others (including Mrs. White) is not "The law of Moses" but applications of the law of God that we just described to different application. While God's law is absolute these application are not absolute. They are useful application.

Thus to be truly under the law is to rest in an objective relationship with God as our friend (God the Son, Jesus)  which opens our objective minds to who God is and his love for us, and this leads to the subjective experience of the Holy Spirit working with our subjective to make choices on how to love God and his world.

This works with how I've discussed hell fire in other posts here.

This is also how we can see Christ in larger terms than just Christianity. There are people of all faiths, including those who do not claim a faith, but who somehow are having that relationship that when they see Jesus they will know he is their friend. Salvation is ONLY in this friendship. This is what Jesus meant when he said that he is the only way. We make a mistake and think that it's Christianity that saves us. That salvation is doing the work of saying the magic words about accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior and to give a history lesson about what Jesus did. Thus too many of us don't have room in heaven for Jews or other religions. They have a sense of the "assurance of salvation" because they said the right words. This is just a short list of works of the law that we think we have to do to be saved. Among the Pharisees there were people depending on a longer list, and the Synagogue of the Freemen had a longer list still.

The lists are just guidelines to point us in the direction of self sacrificing love. Don't loose the forest for the trees.

[8thdaypriest]

On 10/13/2016 at 1:09 PM, JoeMo said:

So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." (Gal 3:1-6)

I believe God. 

Sakkot blessings.  Today is the First Day of Sakkot (Tabernacles) - a sabbath of rest. 

PS:  Did you know?  Sakkot was a 7days Feast.  Then there was another Feast - The 8th Day (which was also a sabbath of rest. 

I never knew that, while I was an Adventist. 

Leviticus 23:34 "Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, 'On the fifteenth of this seventh month is the Feast of Booths for seven days to the LORD.

35 'On the first day is a holy convocation; you shall do no laborious work of any kind. 36 'For seven days you shall present an offering by fire to the LORD.

On the eighth day you shall have a holy convocation and present an offering by fire to the LORD; it is an assembly. You shall do no laborious work. (Lev 23:34 NAU)

They were to "dwell in booths" for 7 days - to remember the wandering.  On the 8th day, they no longer dwelt in booths - because they WERE HOME - just as we will be one day, at the 8th millennium - on this earth. 

[Robert]

Rom 2: 12...all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified...

Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the Law [i.e., salvation by law] are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” 

Rom 10:5 For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness.

To be under law is to be under the jurisdiction of the law....It means salvation is based on your performance.  But if you fail you must die.

 

[8thdaypriest]

18 hours ago, Seventh Day said:

Absolutely. It does not mean the dismantlement of the Law; it means its establishment. It does not mean annulment of parts of the Law; it means the WHOLE Law is alive and alert to pounce upon its transgressors and condemn them by authority invested in it by the One Who is the Lawgiver even God's Word through and in the Person of Jesus Christ.

 

The "whole law" includes the Feasts and the sacrifices.    I think you might have said, "The moral law". 

[8thdaypriest]

On 10/17/2016 at 7:56 PM, Seventh Day said:

Exactly what it says! "so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God".

So, Who are "those who are under the law"?

Answer: "the WHOLE WORLD", everyone "accountable to God".

Who are not accountable to God? NO ONE!

Which means ALL are under the Law, as the Scriptures say, "FOR AS LONG AS HE or THEY SHALL LIVE"!

Now "He who has Me (Jesus Christ) has everlasting life." And so everyone who belongs to Jesus Christ is forever under the Law : The Law of Indestructible Life -- which is Jesus Christ only and forevermore.

Seventh Day,  I think you mistake my explanation. 

I am NOT SAYING that "the Law" (condensed as Ten Commands) should be ignored or thrown away (as many cheap grace - churches do). 

I am saying that we all have transgressed "the law".  That means - according to the law - that we all are condemned to death (just like in Eden after they ate the fruit).

The Law has decreed death.  That is the sentence of "the Law", for even the smallest infraction.

Someone must stand BETWEEN me and the sentence of the law if I am to survive.  Right?   

If I stand UNDER Christ (if I belong to Him), I am protected from that sentence of eternal death. 

I think this is what Paul meant, when He wrote:

On 10/18/2016 at 1:32 AM, The Wanderer said:

Romans 6:14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. (NIV)

Romans 6:15  What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! (NIV)

 

On 10/18/2016 at 1:32 AM, The Wanderer said:

Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. (NKJ)

Paul definitely said those who belong to Christ "are not under the law". 

The question is:  What did Paul mean by those words? 

Some teach that Paul meant we should just throw out "the Law".  I don't think that is what Paul meant. 

I believe Paul meant that we are set free from the PENALTY dictated by "the Law". 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 10/12/2016 at 0:52 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

Comment:  I do not agree with those who say that "the law" in Galatians refers only to the Oral Torah.

I don't agree with that either.

The word "law" appears in 25 different verses in Galatians.  It would be irresponsible to assume that all of them refer to the same law, or to the same type of law.  In Galatians 4:21 Paul has two different usages of "law" in the same verse. 

If we wanted to know what "law" refers to in Galatians we would need to look at the full context of each passage, and check the Greek to see what the translators have added to the English or subtracted from the Greek.

Three of the verses in Galatians use the phrase "works of the law".  That phrase has a specific meaning in other Jewish writings of the same era. It would make sense to pay attention to that meaning.

In many of the verses the translators have added the English word "the" to make the verse say "the law" instead of just "law".  Some of those additions may be justified.  Some are not.  I don't think we can assume Paul meant the same thing when he said "under law" as he meant when he said "under the law". 

I also think we should pay attention to when Paul says "en ho nomos" (Romans 3:19) and when he says "hypo nomon" (in other verses).

Paul was trained in Jewish law to a higher level than the average Jew.  How could we assume that he didn't use that knowledge when he wrote?

In Galatians Paul is writing to a specific group of people to deal with various issues related to the gospel and accepting Gentile believers into community and into covenant.  Gentiles necessarily entered community and covenant in a different way than Jews did.  Jews came into community by birth and by inheritance.  Inheritance is a big deal throughout Scripture.  It seems strange that people try to understand what "under law" means without considering the laws of inheritance and the man-made laws that the Jewish sages had invented for Gentiles to enter into the inheritance.

 

 

[JoeMo]

While I find compliance with the 10 an admirable and worthy goal, I'm not sure how much that compliance buys you (general "you" - no one specific). Doesn't Paul say:

"Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, ⁸ will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious.   If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!  For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. ¹¹ And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts! (2 Cor. 3:7-11).

[Gregory Matthews]

I have removed from view a post that went beyond acceptable boundaries for this forum.  In addition, I have removed from view other posts that quoted from the post that I removed from view.

It is not acceptable in Club Adventist to make a statement as to the quality of another person spiritual relationship.

[8thdaypriest]

On 10/12/2016 at 2:52 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. (NKJ)

I've been with out of state company since Friday.  We had a wonderful Sakkot commemoration feast, and discussed spiritual and theological things. 

I found Ron Amnsn's post interesting.  Ron, Have you analyzed any passages to sort out which "law" Paul is writing about, when he says "you are not under the law" ? 

What exactly does it MEAN to be "under the law" ?

I believe it means to stand directly under the terms of the "blood covenant" WITHOUT the protection of Christ. 

Galatians 3:13 “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us:”

Those who rejected Christ, had to stand under "the law" WITHOUT the protecting "grace" period, which buys us time, until the spirit has fully written "the law" on our hearts.  

 

    Galatians 3:10 “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.’”

The Sinai Covenant was a blood covenant.  Every Israelite understood this.  Moses sprinkled the Book of the law and all the people with blood (Hebrews 9:19, Exodus 24:6-8). He made it very clear that henceforth they must choose between life or death (Deut. 30:19).

Deuteronomy 11:26 “Behold, I set before you today a blessing and a curse: the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you today; and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the LORD your God,

    Jeremiah 11:3 “Thus says the LORD God of Israel: ‘Cursed is the man who does not obey the words of this covenant.’”

 

The best way to prove that Jesus would have been eternally lost (and all mankind with Him) is to quote Galatians 4:4, which says that God's Son was "born under the law".   This means Jesus would have been consumed by "the curse" (which is death) IF He had sinned.  This is what "the law" decreed. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ron Amnsn]

3 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Ron, Have you analyzed any passages to sort out which "law" Paul is writing about, when he says "you are not under the law" ? 

First, Paul never says, "you are not under the law".  The definite article "the" has been added by the translators-- it is not in the Greek.  Some will argue that the "the" is implied in the Greek, which may be true, or may not be true.  I think it is actually implied more by the theology of modern Christians who don't value God's Law as much as the early followers of Jesus did.

Yes, I have analyzed the passages that people use to support ignoring parts of God's Law.  Most of the passages could be understood in several ways, depending on which specific point Paul was trying to make in the original context. The problem is that we don't have the original context.

Modern Christians tend to read Paul as if there was only one "law" that he could have been talking about -- "the" law of God.  However, Paul was writing to Jews and to the Gentiles that were associated with the Jewish community.  Those are communities who constantly discuss "Torah" or law as they try to put it into practice.  Although "Torah" primarily refers to God's Law, a discussion of Torah also includes all the traditions and opinions of oral law that relate to God's Law.  They can discuss very extensively the subtle nuances of a particular law -- nuances that few outside the synagogue are even aware of. Modern Jewish communities all differ in various ways on theology and practice, depending on the teachings of the local rabbi. I think that has always been the case. 

So, I don't try to build theology on Paul's statements about a Jewish community dispute regarding law or some unknown nuance about law. Although the original recipients of Paul's letters knew exactly what Paul meant, I don't think we know enough of the context to build theology by reading mail addressed to a situation about which we can only speculate.  I try to interpret all of Paul's writings within the parameters that Paul himself gave.  One of those parameters was "I believe everything that agrees with the Law and is written in the Prophets."  (Acts 24:14)  The "Law and the Prophets" is how they referred to the Old Testament (or its major sections).  Why don't we hear the followers of Paul today testifying that they believe everything that agrees with the Old Testament Scriptures?

[Ron Amnsn]

5 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

What exactly does it MEAN to be "under the law" ?

I believe it means to stand directly under the terms of the "blood covenant" WITHOUT the protection of Christ. 

This seems like a contradiction based on incorrect assumptions-- that God's Law of Moses had no "grace" and no "Christ", and that it was a covenant that somehow provided "eternal salvation" without Christ.

When Moses sprinkled the blood of the covenant onto the people of Israel when the covenant was ratified, whose blood was it?  Was it not the blood of an animal sacrifice?  I often hear people claim that the animal sacrifices are no longer valid because they only pointed to Christ.  But now you're saying that the "blood covenant" that was ratified by the sprinkling of the blood of an animal sacrifice whose "only valid purpose" was to point forward to Christ yet that covenant is somehow "without the protection of Christ".  How can that be?  It sounds like nonsense to me.

On the one hand you seem to claiming that there was no other valid purpose for the sacrifices other than the sole purpose of representing Messiah, but on the other hand you seem to be claiming that those sacrifices were Messiah-less.  That is a contradiction.

[JoeMo]

Interesting post, Ron.  I have been playing with the idea lately that the OT Hebrews (and others) did not fully understand the symbolism of the sacrificial system (i.e., they didn't "get" the concept of a suffering Messiah), in spite of prophecies in Isaiah 52 - 53 and Zechariah 11.  We have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight; so we can see the symbolism between Christ and the sacrificial system. Satan himself may not have even understood the suffering Messiah prophecies, or he wouldn't have caused jesus to be crucified. "None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." (1 Cor. 2:8)

[8thdaypriest]

20 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

So, I don't try to build theology on Paul's statements about a Jewish community dispute regarding law or some unknown nuance about law. Although the original recipients of Paul's letters knew exactly what Paul meant, I don't think we know enough of the context to build theology by reading mail addressed to a situation about which we can only speculate.  I try to interpret all of Paul's writings within the parameters that Paul himself gave.  One of those parameters was "I believe everything that agrees with the Law and is written in the Prophets."  (Acts 24:14)  The "Law and the Prophets" is how they referred to the Old Testament (or its major sections).  Why don't we hear the followers of Paul today testifying that they believe everything that agrees with the Old Testament Scriptures?

So basically you're saying that you don't know.

[8thdaypriest]

20 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

This seems like a contradiction based on incorrect assumptions-- that God's Law of Moses had no "grace" and no "Christ", and that it was a covenant that somehow provided "eternal salvation" without Christ.

When Moses sprinkled the blood of the covenant onto the people of Israel when the covenant was ratified, whose blood was it?  Was it not the blood of an animal sacrifice?  I often hear people claim that the animal sacrifices are no longer valid because they only pointed to Christ.  But now you're saying that the "blood covenant" that was ratified by the sprinkling of the blood of an animal sacrifice whose "only valid purpose" was to point forward to Christ yet that covenant is somehow "without the protection of Christ".  How can that be?  It sounds like nonsense to me.

On the one hand you seem to claiming that there was no other valid purpose for the sacrifices other than the sole purpose of representing Messiah, but on the other hand you seem to be claiming that those sacrifices were Messiah-less.  That is a contradiction.

Adam and Eve were created "under law".  Their dominion would be protected by the Creator IF they obeyed Him.  But they disobeyed, and Satan (who is much stronger than humans) took over the dominion.  

The "grace" extended to Adam/Eve and to all of humankind, was BASED UPON the promised "Lamb of God".    Every animal sacrifice presented by priests (Melchizedek order or Aaronic) symbolized that PROMISED lamb.   So yes - they had "grace".   But without the promise, there was no value whatsoever in the blood of bulls and goats. 

There was value, only insofar as the sacrifice symbolized their faith in the PROMISE. 

Concerning those who lived during the OT -- it is NOT "a contradiction" to say that some will be saved and some will be lost - based upon their FAITH (or lack of faith) in "the promise".   The "blood sacrifice" - without the faith - was useless.   [And yes, FAITH includes obedient behavior based upon belief.]

Since Christ died, some will be saved and others lost BASED UPON their belief in the One True Sacrifice.